News political alert! Do you approve of trumps doings while in office

[Barbas]

Did you not even read...
It's a symbolic deterrent, not a physical one. Sure it helps, but ofc it doesn't help much.
This wall symbolizes to all the immigrants outside that if you don't have a green card, you aren't going to be welcomed here. There isn't a place for them. If you do, the wall means that you aren't going to get swindled, and it should instill a sense of pride in you.
The wall symbolizes to those illegal immigrants inside America that they aren't going to be tolerated, and that if they want to stay, they need to become legal citizens. Which is what Americans want.
This wall being built also instills a sense of pride and necessity in immigration organizations. There've been more arrests this year by a good margin than last year, and this year isn't even over. That's not touching on deportations. It's not because Trump is funding more, it's because the immigration admins are doing better work knowing that they're needed and wanted. So it does, in fact, help inside the U.S. as well.
The wall is also symbolic to immigrants coming up from South America, which does increase cartel crime in Mexico, and lets them know there's no reason to come up into Mexico anymore. It would literally be safer for them to legally immigrate.
Granted, the news could ruin this symbolic deterrent by absolutely spamming "Don't worry, no matter how high that wall is, you can still become Americans!" If that happens, and the symbolism isn't taken in, then you are 110% right, it's a stupid project.
Next time, if you're going to make a lovely bulletpoint list of stuff, actually read what I have to say first. Because I just rehashed my points I made initially because you didn't address pretty much any of them. Kthx.




Also jobs

Useless symbolic gestures usually don't cost billions of dollars.

 

[Barbas]

It's not useless if it works.
It won't work if news organizations continue to contradict the symbolism loudly.
Hence, they need to stop preaching the "illegal immigrants are just as acceptable as legal immigrants and natural-born Americans" speech for it to work.

If Trump's wall's power can be completely destroyed by a few of news articles talking about why it's a terrible idea, than it's pretty obvious that it's a bad idea.

 

[The Forge]

So far I am yet to see a president whose actions I like, they're all awful no matter what party they belong to.

 

[Barbas]

No, it's by many minor and almost all major news publications repeatedly broadcasting the blatant lie that immigrants who arrived illegally (or stayed illegally) are just as important to America or just as acceptable in as legal immigrants who actually worked to get here or Americans who were born here. Unfortunately, they've not established a difference between them yet, and they're rendering the symbolism of the wall ineffective. If they actually put out the message that legal immigrants are accepted and welcomed by Americans but illegal immigrants aren't, which is how it should be, then the wall's symbolism would be an effective block.
Most publications that call it a terrible idea are focused on the physical deterrent part of it. Most Americans, including myself, know that using a wall for a physical deterrent is a poor idea.
Again, if the symbolic deterrent wasn't being consistently sabotaged from the inside, then the wall would be effective.

You do realize that, in reality, your 'symbolic deterrence' is utterly useless, right?

 

[Shazam]

I don't. I especially don't like that he banned transgendered people from the military, his intentions to withdraw the u.s from the Paris agreement and the whole wall idea.

 

[Barbas]

You do realize that, in reality, the symbolic deterrence of the Berlin Wall worked, right? The difference being that in our case, we would be not accepting towards those who make it over, and in their case, they prevent anyone from making it over in the first place. In their case, since they could count on being accepted, they were willing to risk their lives and everything they had to try to get over the wall. In our case, they don't see a need to risk everything they own (and maybe their lives if an accident occurs) if they won't be accepted. They should realize it's not only safer to do enter legally, but that once they arrive legally they will be entitled to all America has to offer.
Legal immigrants are entitled to the benefits and have access to welfare. Illegal immigrants are stealing the benefits and are leaching the welfare.
Of course, if the media continues to spread the message that illegal immigrants are entitled to everything legal immigrants are and there should be no repercussions for immigrating illegally, then the symbolism, again, will not work, since even though the wall is in place, America is still [appearing to be] welcoming illegal immigrants.

Sorry to tell you this, but your post is complete nonsense. Illegal Immigrants still come to this country despite already knowing that they won't be accepted. And no, the Berlin wall did not work, since people still risked everything to leave. Though I think it's pretty funny that you want the US to imitate a totalitarian regime.

 

[Shazam]

Actually, that's pretty far from the truth. Illegal immigrants have access to the healthcare system, they can get jobs, they can attend public events and engage in public activities, in many cases they use rights that they have not earned, they are oftentimes not deported, arrested, fined, etc., and in general, for the most part, they are treated the same as ordinary, legal immigrants.

Would you mind linking your sources? I have a hard time believing that last part.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

The wall won't ever be effective, not even as a symbolic deterrent for a few reasons.

1. The wall is more symbolic of the ignorance of Americans than it is of our immigration policy. First of all, Mexico won't be paying for the wall. Americans will pay for the wall. Our president, a reality TV star, totally duped the public into ever thinking that would happen. It is a symbol of arrogance, stupidity, and pride. It does nothing but harm the pockets of the Americans who will pay for it. All goods coming from Mexico are just gonna be more expensive to finance the wall. Should have seen that coming. But no, we're America and we can make anyone do anything we want, right? Wrong.

2. The Mexican economy is pretty great right now. A lot of illegal immigrants from Mexico are going back to Mexico because they can make more money there. The 2nd largest group of illegal immigrants is Asians, with an estimate of just over 400,000 illegal Asian immigrants in California. Does anyone care? No, because the stereotypical view of an Asian is not as scary as the stereotypical view of drug dealing raping Latino, who despite being an active criminal still somehow has the time to steal a legal job from an American citizen picking grapes in the hot ass Californian sun in between all the rape and murder. A wall on the Mexican border won't stop illegal Asians from getting to the states. That and, a lot of illegal immigrants from Mexico and central America come by plane. So unless the wall is gonna go into the atmosphere...

The wall is a silly idea in a symbolic sense, a utility sense, and an economic sense. It is all around a dumb and childish idea. "Just build a wall, that'll show em." If someone really wants to come to America illegally from Mexico and central America, a big ass wall that would have to cut through mountains on the border isn't gonna stop them. If they can afford a plane ticket, they can come here illegally.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

1. You and I agree that Mexico will never pay for the entire wall. But there is undoubtedly a way to make Mexico pay for at least some, possibly up to half, of the wall. I addressed it earlier on.
2. 11,000,000 illegal immigrants, 400,000 of which are Asians and, off the top of my head (and probably being relatively generous), 2,000,000 of which are other ethnic minorities or illegal Europeans or Canadians or South Africans or whathaveyou (not ethnic minorities is what I'm saying, but still illegal). That leaves 8,600,000 people from Central and South America. The reason we care more about deporting those are because (1) it is far simpler to deport someone who has a border right next to yours as opposed to deporting someone who is across the largest body of water in the world and (2) there are far more illegal Central and South Americans than illegal Asians, which makes them a bigger priority. Ideally, illegal Asians would be deported as well, but when there is a larger problem with probably an equivalent cost to solve, it's easy to choose.
Fair point, and the only one I haven't addressed.
1st of all, the wall's symbolism applies to them as well. As a physical deterrent, yes, a wall does jack against a civil airplane.
2nd of all, strengthening airport security is certainly cheaper than building a wall, but then we would have to deal with an even longer hassle. The wall, believe it or not, aside from economically, doesn't affect as many Americans as beefing up airport security would.
3rd of all, those who physically cross the border and those who fly over and never leave are a part of a smaller minority than those who cross the border legally and then overstay. Measures are being put in place as we speak to deal with that major issue (though we're treating the symptoms, not the illness), and after which we will build the wall.

I'm sure mountain-splitting has been factored into the 11-billion dollar budget. Calm thyself.

As it stands, a wall would be ineffective as a physical deterrent and a symbolic deterrent because we can't shoot illegal immigrants (which is what made the Berlin Wall so effective; the wall itself didn't do much. There just happened to be alert machine gun towers.) and because many Americans and the much of the media is willing to accept illegal immigrants just as freely as legal immigrants.
If we change the message we are spreading, which is one that opposes illegal immigration vehemently, then when combined with a wall it serves as a very effective deterrent.

I will freely admit that we would need to be careful. AT. ALL. COSTS. We may oppose illegal immigration, but we MUST not oppose, oppress, or deport immigrants. I pray we never ever reach that stage, which we shouldn't.

What is the way in which Mexico pays for up to half of the wall that you discussed earlier? Perhaps you can direct me to the page in which it was discussed if you don't wanna repeat yourself. I'm late to the party.

And even if that is the case, does Mexico really owe us a wall? When we're talking about Mexico paying for a wall we're talking about an entire country of people paying for something that won't positively affect them at all. Are they paying to apologise for all of the illegal immigrants they sent over? Because I mean, if we're sending the message that we need to pay for apologies, then perhaps we owe Mexico an apology. Considering that a huge portion of the US including California was at one point Mexico, and the Mexicans living there were kicked off the land and crammed into a smaller area. If they're going to have them pay for our wall out of a moral obligation, then maybe we should give them a statue of liberty or some shit to pay for the fact that we made Mexico a lot smaller than it used to be.

11 million illegal immigrants where? Because the estimated 400k I listed only accounts for California. Granted about 1/3 of all Asian Americans live in California. But the other 2/3...

Furthermore, Asian families on average earn far more than Latino families and even black families, so who's really taking away the higher paying jobs?

If it's an equivalent cost to solve the deportation of Central and Mexican illegal immigrants, then is it truly easier to deport them just because their border is closer? What makes it easier if it costs the same? Furthermore, if it is an equivalent cost, then all illegal immigrants should be looked at equally. Why is it that Latinos are being looked at differently than other illegal immigrants? You can't pretend that there isn't racial element to this whole wall deal.

Airport security is beefed up about as much as as it could be after 9/11. Furthermore, an illegal immigrant flies to the United States legally. Airport security isn't going to track them down if they choose not to go home. Furthermore, I don't think beefing up airport security would affect as many Americans as a tariff on Mexican goods. How often do people travel compared to how often they buy avocados?

I'm very calm, so I've no need to calm myself. The fact of the matter is, I can think of many ways in which an 11 billion dollar budget can be spent more effectively than fucking with Mother Nature's mountains. I like mountains. I'd rather a pointless wall not be built through them when that money can go to schools for myself and my children.

If the only way the wall would be effective is if we shoot people, then there's even less reason to build it. Because human life is valuable, whether you're coming to the country to pick grapes or sell weed. Furthermore, you can't shoot someone who tunneled under the wall, or just sailed around it. Unless we build the wall through the sea as well and get the mole men to help us make sure there's no fuckery under the earth. And if shooting people is what makes walls effective, I'm sure we could do that now without a whole wall built. Just build more watchtowers.

So if you've freely admitted that the wall won't work symbolically then why defend it? The media and the public has been more anti-immigration than ever before it seems to me. It seems the only people who behave as if they're welcoming to illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America are people who benefit from paying them less for their labor.

The wall is indefensibly stupid.

 

[SmugViking]

Again, they're not going to pay for all of it. You and I have already agreed that Trump is foolish to believe that. But for the reasons above, they might be willing to contribute, be it monetarily, with labor, or with resources.
Yes, we should apologize for an event that they brought on themselves over a hundred years ago. (kind of... I have read history, don't worry).

11 million illegal immigrants throughout the United States.
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S..
(most of them are from Asia, Central America, and Mexico)
My logic there is that most Asians land on the West Coast. Aside from that, California has been the primary drop-off for Asian Americans in general. And it's not like because 1/3rd of Asian-Americans live in California, 2/3rds of illegal Asian immigrants are going to be evenly spread statistically across the nation.
If I am being honest I misread that as a total throughout the U.S. However, even if that was not the case and we appropriately adjusted the statistic to match the disparity throughout the rest of the U.S. and detracted only from my Central/South American statistic, that would leave 7,800,000 South and Central Americans. My point, although slightly less impactful, still stands.

I realize that entirely, and oftentimes, those Asians are legal Asians. Logically, higher-paying jobs will have stricter entry requirements, and nine times out of ten, being a legal citizen of the United States is one of those.
Even if they were entirely illegal families, they would likely not drain American taxpayer dollars through welfare and healthcare, since they can pay for those things themselves.
In addition, that would be a total of 1,200,000 jobs taken away, compared to 6,000,000 jobs taken away by Mexicans alone.

It's an equivalent cost as it stands because both require new policies in place, and because it would be logical that on a per capita rate, the Latino population would be easier to deport, given the fact that they are far closer. On a large-scale view, where we view the groups as a whole, 7.8M and 1.2M, respectively, the total cost to deport one group would likely be equivalent to the other.
I don't need to pretend if there's not anything racist at all. Allocation of resources, my friend.
Even if there was, so long as he doesn't deport legal Latinos, he's not doing any damage.
But rest assured, if Trump began to deport any legal immigrants without reason, I'd be marching on the street against him.

View attachment 348798
Don't be racist.
To my knowledge, the wall does not include a tariff. So I don't know why you're bringing that up.

Again, you have to breeeeeathe. Now, listen calmly.
The entire 11 billion dollar budget is not going to be used to bulldoze mountains.
Again, if Trump and his administration play their cards right, we could be looking at a 5.5B wall, not an 11B wall.
If the wall worked, it wouldn't be pointless, now would it?

Hahahaha! Ah, yes. Latching on to the wrong point, as usual.
Maybe you missed the primary point I have been attempting to drive home this entire time.
As a physical deterrent, a wall on its own is a poor choice.
As a matter of conscience and ethics and common sense, we cannot add more than just a wall to deter immigrants physically.
As a result, the wall, logically, is not being built as a physical deterrent. It is being worked as a symbolic deterrent.

You have been incorrect.
I pray no one in America is anti-immigration.
However, we may be getting increasingly anti-illegal immigration.
As it stands, however, even if most Americans are not willing to accept illegal immigrants the same way that they will legal immigrants (and I pray they accept legal immigrants), the media, especially major publications like CNN and NBC, have continued to send a message of acceptance towards illegal immigration. As a result, though the wall is in place, those on the other end of it perceive that America will still welcome them despite of the wall.
If, as you say, this is not the case, then this is almost a torturous tactic we've been using, intentionally or otherwise.
However, I continue to deny that this is the case. And as a result, despite a wall, we continue to make exceptions for illegal immigrants.

I think the main point is this:
If the wall is going to work, we need to clearly show that we do not accept illegal immigrants and the wall is because of that, rather than continuing to accept illegal immigrants and doing that despite the wall.
Because yes, it sucks as a physical deterrent.
And yes, as it stands, because we don't practice what we preach, it is going to be an ineffective symbolic deterrent.
But if we begin to actually become [more] pro-legal immigrant and anti-illegal immigrant and clearly show that, then the wall will be an effective measure.

The wall is defensibly genius. We just need to make some change. Aren't we all about change?

This whole post made me fucking horny.

 

[Hall Kervean]

This whole post made me fucking horny.

I...
don't know how to respond to that.

 

[SmugViking]

I...
don't know how to respond to that.

You don't need to respond when you provide such detail and a properly constructed rebuttal.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

Again, they're not going to pay for all of it. You and I have already agreed that Trump is foolish to believe that. But for the reasons above, they might be willing to contribute, be it monetarily, with labor, or with resources.
Yes, we should apologize for an event that they brought on themselves over a hundred years ago. (kind of... I have read history, don't worry).

11 million illegal immigrants throughout the United States.
5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S..
(most of them are from Asia, Central America, and Mexico)
My logic there is that most Asians land on the West Coast. Aside from that, California has been the primary drop-off for Asian Americans in general. And it's not like because 1/3rd of Asian-Americans live in California, 2/3rds of illegal Asian immigrants are going to be evenly spread statistically across the nation.
If I am being honest I misread that as a total throughout the U.S. However, even if that was not the case and we appropriately adjusted the statistic to match the disparity throughout the rest of the U.S. and detracted only from my Central/South American statistic, that would leave 7,800,000 South and Central Americans. My point, although slightly less impactful, still stands.

I realize that entirely, and oftentimes, those Asians are legal Asians. Logically, higher-paying jobs will have stricter entry requirements, and nine times out of ten, being a legal citizen of the United States is one of those.
Even if they were entirely illegal families, they would likely not drain American taxpayer dollars through welfare and healthcare, since they can pay for those things themselves.
In addition, that would be a total of 1,200,000 jobs taken away, compared to 6,000,000 jobs taken away by Mexicans alone.

It's an equivalent cost as it stands because both require new policies in place, and because it would be logical that on a per capita rate, the Latino population would be easier to deport, given the fact that they are far closer. On a large-scale view, where we view the groups as a whole, 7.8M and 1.2M, respectively, the total cost to deport one group would likely be equivalent to the other.
I don't need to pretend if there's not anything racist at all. Allocation of resources, my friend.
Even if there was, so long as he doesn't deport legal Latinos, he's not doing any damage.
But rest assured, if Trump began to deport any legal immigrants without reason, I'd be marching on the street against him.

View attachment 348798
Don't be racist.
To my knowledge, the wall does not include a tariff. So I don't know why you're bringing that up.

Again, you have to breeeeeathe. Now, listen calmly.
The entire 11 billion dollar budget is not going to be used to bulldoze mountains.
Again, if Trump and his administration play their cards right, we could be looking at a 5.5B wall, not an 11B wall.
If the wall worked, it wouldn't be pointless, now would it?

Hahahaha! Ah, yes. Latching on to the wrong point, as usual.
Maybe you missed the primary point I have been attempting to drive home this entire time.
As a physical deterrent, a wall on its own is a poor choice.
As a matter of conscience and ethics and common sense, we cannot add more than just a wall to deter immigrants physically.
As a result, the wall, logically, is not being built as a physical deterrent. It is being worked as a symbolic deterrent.

You have been incorrect.
I pray no one in America is anti-immigration.
However, we may be getting increasingly anti-illegal immigration.
As it stands, however, even if most Americans are not willing to accept illegal immigrants the same way that they will legal immigrants (and I pray they accept legal immigrants), the media, especially major publications like CNN and NBC, have continued to send a message of acceptance towards illegal immigration. As a result, though the wall is in place, those on the other end of it perceive that America will still welcome them despite of the wall.
If, as you say, this is not the case, then this is almost a torturous tactic we've been using, intentionally or otherwise.
However, I continue to deny that this is the case. And as a result, despite a wall, we continue to make exceptions for illegal immigrants.

I think the main point is this:
If the wall is going to work, we need to clearly show that we do not accept illegal immigrants and the wall is because of that, rather than continuing to accept illegal immigrants and doing that despite the wall.
Because yes, it sucks as a physical deterrent.
And yes, as it stands, because we don't practice what we preach, it is going to be an ineffective symbolic deterrent.
But if we begin to actually become [more] pro-legal immigrant and anti-illegal immigrant and clearly show that, then the wall will be an effective measure.

The wall is defensibly genius. We just need to make some change. Aren't we all about change?

It doesn't matter if they're going to pay for all of it, what matters is if they're going to pay for any of it and should they pay for any of it. What do they have to gain from paying for it? And again, what reasons above will they be willing to contribute to it?

I know you misread it, that's why I pointed it out. That's fine it happens. I don't have the numbers and I can't be assed to grab a link, but I'm willing to bet most immigrants legal or not from Mexico and Central America land on the west too, mainly California, and Southwest states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

That link you posted also lists that illegal Mexican immigration has gone down since 2009 and has gone up for Asia and Central America. And I can almost guarantee that growing number of people isn't hopping a fence to get into the country.

Your explanation for what makes them equivalent doesn't explain what makes them equivalent. How many policies would have to be made for each group, a different number? Would some policies be more expensive than others? What is it exactly about deporting someone back to Asia makes it more expensive than deporting someone back to Mexico? My uneducated guess would be jet fuel, as the transportation seems to be the only variable of the equation that would be affected by the distance of the countries the illegals would be deported back to.

What is that table supposed to demonstrate and how am I being racist? Seriously, ask your average guy how often they eat avocados and how often they get on airplanes. I'm willing to bet that even people who travel a lot buy goods from Mexico more often than they get on a plane.

I'm breathing perfectly fine lol. What about my tone makes you think I'm angry or excited? I'm not an idiot, I know the entire 11B budget won't be spent cutting through the mountains. Please don't patronize me. My point is, I don't want the mountains cut through at all for a pointless wall. And even if the cost of the wall is a measly 5.5B dollars, it doesn't change the fact that it's a waste of an extremely large portion of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

What wrong point have I usually been latching onto? I get your point that you think the wall works as a symbolic deterrent. I'm saying it absolutely does not. And you've yet to convince me how it could be a symbol for anything other than stupidity and immature reactionary logic.

Edit: I got enter pawned so I'll make this edit quick XD

For the media, you can't point out extremist left wing news and pretend like extremist right wing news like FOX doesn't control public opinion either. Most people get their information from televised news, and we have a republican president. While left wing media has more clout, right wing media isn't completely powerless. The Muslim Ban was a thing a lotta people were in favor of. Latino hysteria is a thing. You can't tell me right wing news doesn't have an influence on public opinion, so much so that it balances out with Left Wing news.

Change is fine, the wall is not defensibly genius. It's a pointless waste of money and it's not a solution in any sense. It symbolizes nothing but stupidity, America doesn't need another monument. If the wall is ever built and the world isn't destroyed by nukes, it will forever be remembered as one of the biggest embarrassments in American history.

I don't like politics. I don't know much about them. I really don't even care that Trump is President. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I didn't even vote. I ultimately don't care. But I know what I know and I see what I see. And what I see is: the wall is retarded.

 

[The Gunrunner]

Though I'm a little late, I have to ask: If the wall fails as a physical deterrent, which you seem to think will happen if a physical focus is such, why wouldn't it just symbolize incompetence? If illegal immigrants have been passing over the border for years (both the Mexican cement wall and the American mixup of fences and other shit covering about 1/3 or 1/4(?),) why would this threaten them at all...? If you want a symbol that the USA can't be reached anymore, I think better funding into border patrols and immigration courts would be enough.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

Though I'm a little late, I have to ask: If the wall fails as a physical deterrent, which you seem to think will happen if a physical focus is such, why wouldn't it just symbolize incompetence? If illegal immigrants have been passing over the border for years (both the Mexican cement wall and the American mixup of fences and other shit covering about 1/3 or 1/4(?),) why would this threaten them at all...? If you want a symbol that the USA can't be reached anymore, I think better funding into border patrols and immigration courts would be enough.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The wall is a symbol of incompetence.

 

[The Gunrunner]

Well, I actually think the wall's fine if it can be built. The issue has mostly been the border patrols being so sparse and the courts being so amazingly shit, but to the former a barrier can be a great help to delaying attempts until the effort is caught. I just disagree with the symbolic argument

 

[JayTee]

I'll be shocked if Trump makes it past two years without finding an excuse to quit or being removed from power in one way or another.

He hates the Presidency and would rather have his old life back.

His approval ratings are tanking with no sign of slowing down, and we haven't even finished his first year.

The Russia investigation is not slowing down, but becoming more involved, despite his administration's best attempts to distract or downplay it.

Republicans currently control congress, and Trump is alienating many of them. These are the people in Washington who would traditionally have his back. To say nothing of our allies abroad.

He's required not one but two different do-overs after botching what should have been trivially easy Presidential moments, something that I cannot recall any other President in history needing.

Fundamentally, he is a failed President. I respect the office of the President and was more than willing to give him a chance the night of the election when he gave his short speech about being the President to all Americans. But his behavior over these past few months have been disgraceful, and I can no longer in good conscience support him in any way.

 

[SmugViking]

can we talk about the multiple terrorist groups operating within the united states and yet they haven't been labeled as terrorist organizations?

• antifa
• kkk
• blm
• bamn

 

[JayTee]

I thought this was a thread about our current President, not various organizations who may or may not be terrorists. Shouldn't we stay on point?

 

[SmugViking]

well the fact that they haven't been labeled as terrorists is the fault of the president and the doj

 

[JayTee]

It's unlikely that some of those organizations will be recognized as terroristic, as the President has made it clear that he supports them. Not coincidentally, many of them make up the bulk of his strongest supporters.

 

[SirBlazeALot]

Hey, maybe you should read what I have to say before saying "What do they have to gain from paying for it? And again, what reasons above will they be willing to contribute to it?"
I answered that question already.

Very true, but they do spread throughout America. However, certainly a majority of illegal immigrants don't bother going far away from where they crossed over in America.

True.
"Non-Mexicans numbered 5.7 million in the preliminary 2016 estimate, a total that was not statistically different from 2015.

From 2009 to 2015, the number of unauthorized immigrants from Asia and Central America rose."
Unfortunately, I was including Central American in my statistics. And Central Americans do "hop the fence," so to speak. They come up through Mexico (See rebuttal as to why Mexico would be willing to pay for the wall if asked nicely) and then "hop the border," or even settle in Mexico, since Mexico>>>Nicaragua.

Presumably a comparable number. Though there is certainly a great potential for far more policies in having to ship 1.2 million people across the largest ocean in the world than there would be to move 4.8 million across the U.S. and 3 million across a state. I would suspect that policies in relation to the deportation of Asians would be more expensive than deporting Latinos across the border (and possibly up to around a thousand miles further south for the rising Central American numbers).
It's very simple. One is reachable by land, sea, or air. The other is reachable by two of those options. One is anywhere from a few hundred yards to a few thousand miles. The other is a few thousand miles.
And boats. Even assuming that these planes were 100% loaded with illegal immigrants, let's just say 1,200,000/350 x 2 is the number of trips made. I'm not making any roundtrip estimates.
We should, however, touch on some of the illegal immigrants who are actively working to become citizens. Should they become American citizens, they will no longer factor in. We should grant that. I have no numerical estimates for that, but there is an unknown variable that does need to be acknowledged.

It's kinda racist to say that the only reason we shouldn't put tariffs on Mexico is because we eat avocados when avocados aren't even in their top 10 major exports. Are you marginalizing Mexico's acclaimed furniture exports? Yes, yes you are.

The wall's not pointless if it works. I've already conceded that it might not work. You have yet to concede that there is a possibility that I have clearly highlighted where it might work. We're even on our way to making that possibility become a reality.
5.5B that curbs illegal immigration (which costs Americans about that much per year. Look it up.), that stabilizes the border between American and Mexico, that creates jobs, that improves American-Mexican relations (if Trump plays his cards right. See reasons that have as of yet been ignored), that looks cool, and that will make people take our president seriously, since one of his "crazy" plans worked?
I wouldn't say it was pointless.

You latched onto the point that in order for the wall to be as effective as the Berlin Wall as a physical deterrent we need to install machine gun towers, barbed wire, mines, and searchlights. Which is not the point in the slightest.

You've yet to bring anything to the table other than "lul go around," which I've agreed on, "lul it wouldn't matter anyways," which I've argued against by claiming that the symbolic deterrent will prevent many future immigrants, and "lul it would be symbolic of how stupid we are," which I opposed by saying it would actually symbolize to illegal immigrants that America is no longer tolerating illegal immigrants, and that behind the wall they won't find any acceptance. Potential illegal immigrants from other nations around the world, though unable to see the wall itself, will know that if they arrive illegally and are discovered, they will likely have gone through everything with no gain. (This only works if America rejects illegal immigrants almost wholeheartedly)
However, we have kept legal immigration open. That ensures that potential immigrants know that, if they wish to immigrate legally, which is something you, I, Donald J. Trump, Hillary R. Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Colonel Sanders, and Steve Rogers all want.
Basically, by shunning illegal immigrants so absolutely and, on the other side of the coin, welcoming legal immigrants so easily, it is clear that the better option is legal immigration.
Combine this with Trump's new immigration policy. if memory serves, it is a merit-based system. That means that those that have done the most are the ones most likely to be able to immigrate to the United States. Logically, if you know that you are more likely to lose than win if you immigrate illegally and if you know that if you immigrate legally you will be fully accepted into what many see as utopia, then you will do your best to get in. By limiting the legal immigration number to 800,000, that ensures that people will do their absolute best to get in legally, since they have 6.7 billion people who want one of 800,000 spots.
And logically, that means that each year, America will allow in 800,000 of the world's most hardworking, motivated, talented individuals.
They all tie together cohesively. Of course, by welcoming illegal immigrants so freely, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
And yes, there is an addressable danger that by becoming highly disgusted by illegal immigration, we might become highly disgusted by legal immigration. The difference being, of course, that only one goes against the foundation of America itself.


Because the purpose, in and of itself, is not a physical deterrent. If it were, and people circumvented it, then yes. We would be incompetent. Unlike the Mexican cement wall and our fences and other stuff (I'm a pg kid ^^) that covers about 1/3-1/4 of our border, which are physical deterrents, a symbolic deterrent that is circumvented physically does not symbolize that the wall has failed. It symbolizes that those who circumvent it still believe that they can arrive in America without repercussions. If what's happening on our side of the wall is a far tougher stance against illegal immigration, it leads to those who circumvent our walls looking foolish for believing that the wall was a physical deterrent.
Now, we do need to add that the wall can serve as a physical deterrent as well. Will it be effective, not really. The Berlin Wall did it better, and if America tried to copy their methodology of achieving that statistic, I'd sign a petition to impeach whoever made that decision. However, more people with guns doesn't serve as something nearly as visually imposing as a wall.
Which would have given more confidence to the people of China, a ton of watch towers with more people in them or a giant wall?
Which would give more of a pause to Berliners, a bunch of watchtowers and a wall or even more watchtowers?
See the point?
It's a visual representation that America is done with illegal immigration.


Of course, as I shall continue to stress, the wall will be a complete waste of money, resources, manpower, and time if the media does not change its message and Americans continue to not only tolerate illegal immigrants, but fight for their "right" to be here. Of which they have none.

I could read what you said if you directed me to the page number which you said it in... which I asked for in a previous post. Or do you expect me to fish for it? Because that's definitely not happening. So you can repeat yourself, give me a page number, or throw away the point the choice is yours.

Yeah I definitely think illegal immigrants who are here and actively working to become legal should be considered. And I'm more in favor of adamantly compelling illegals to become legal before deporting them. I feel like deportation should be reserved for illegals who have committed crimes on American soil.

And while I see and have seen your point about how deporting an Asian is more expensive than deporting a Mexican, what I'm trying to get you to realize is that you can't just hand wave those numbers. You're gonna need some hardcore math to justify that point, because as it stands, you can't prove that it'd be cheaper to deport Mexicans than Asians. And furthermore, we're talking illegals that are already in the country, yes? The wall won't do anything about people who are already here, they've been living it up for years already. The wall is to deter new illegals, and that number from Mexico is decreasing. Building the wall tells Asians they won't be caught for coming here illegally because America is only concerned with Mexico. Because people are scared of them and not Asians (unless we're talking west Asia). So would it be cheaper to deport the illegals on a case by case basis with more gusto than spending 5.5 to 11 billion dollars on an ineffective wall for false symbolic value?

Ah I see why I'm suddenly racist toward Mexicans. I was using avocados as an extremely basic example to demonstrate my point that more people buy Mexican goods far more often than they get on a plane. That and I'd argue people eat avocados more than they buy furniture. That export volume is measured in money. I'm willing to bet a chair costs more than an avocado. I'm also willing to bet people eat more avocados in a year than buy chairs. If that's racist then logic is racist. And you need to label a table. You posted that table with zero context. For all I knew, it was about exports to the moon.

I'm not going to concede that the wall will be effective in any capacity because it won't and I'm not gonna read the entire thread to see why you think it should. Direct me to the post, quote yourself, or just ignore the point. It's not going to curb illegal immigration if it's ineffective as a wall. The only way it can be effective symbolically is if it curbs illegal immigration from Mexico. Which it won't because it's ineffective as a wall. That's what I'm getting at here. It can't be symbolically effective if it's physically ineffective. It just makes us look stupid whether the media doubles down on illegals or not. That 5.5 to 11B dollars would be better spent bribing the media to double down on illegal immigration if that's what it takes to make the wall effective.

I didn't latch onto the point that the Berlin Wall was effective because of guns. I made quite a few points before and after that one. To claim I latched onto it is like saying all of my points hinge on that. Which they don't. It's one thing I brought up.

What more do I have to bring to the table than "lul go around" and the rest of the luls I've brought to the table. I justified all my luls and I disagree with your thought that the wall will show illegal immigrants America knows what's up whether or not the media does as well. Spending 5.5B on hunting down and deporting illegals will show the world America means business. Not wasting it on an ineffective wall for symbolic stupidity. I don't need to bring any more to the table to justify that point.

And idk if you saw it because I got enter pwned, so I'll reiterate my point about the media by simply quoting myself.

For the media, you can't point out extremist left wing news and pretend like extremist right wing news like FOX doesn't control public opinion either. Most people get their information from televised news, and we have a republican president. While left wing media has more clout, right wing media isn't completely powerless. The Muslim Ban was a thing a lotta people were in favor of. Latino hysteria is a thing. You can't tell me right wing news doesn't have an influence on public opinion, so much so that it balances out with Left Wing news.

 

[JayTee]

I don't see why people dislike him in relation to taxes; he's working to lower them.

For rich people

I can see why people dislike him in relation to immigration. Some people have misconstrued that he's against immigration as a whole. But any illegal immigrants polled would certainly be against him, and so would anyone supporting illegal immigrants.

Tump to end DACA, despite everyone, even his own party, telling him not to. Regardless of your stance on immigration and undocumented immigrants, his own party is telling him "No."

I can see it with the environment, too. He defunded the EPA lol. I'm split; he shouldn't have done that, but he did leave the Paris Climate Accords, which I'm in favor of.

Withdrawing from the Paris accords is a Widely derided decision, even by members of his own party and his own family.

Healthcare isn't his fault. Republicans are mad because Trump isn't getting rid of it, which isn't his fault. Democrats are mad because he is, and he isn't completely getting rid of it.

The Obamacare (Aka, the Affordable Healthcare Act, aka ACA) repeal failure was the result of Congress The Executive branch (the Presidency) has little sway on what laws govern our country. Only the Legislative branch (Congress, the House, the Senate) does.

I can see this, too. He hasn't handled the situation well, though he has had an indescribably frustrating amount of false accusations of racism; such as hating Mexicans, African-Americans, being associated with the KKK and neo-Nazis, etc.
This is mostly because of Charlottesville and his blame of both sides, which were both at fault, when the media has convinced most people that it was all the fault of the white supremacists.

Trum's racism isn't a recent development or a new accusation tactic used by political rivals.

It looks to me, as someone who hasn't kept up with it, like it's a wild goose chase. They've investigated lead after lead after lead and still don't have any solid proof of it. And of course they've tried to downplay it. They want Americans to focus on the decisions that he is making, which is what will actually affect them the most.

The legal team working with Mueller are extreme heavyweights in their field, many of which have left multi-million dollar positions to work on this case. It is extremely unlikely that any of them would even look at this case if it was a wild goose chase.

I completely disagree. He has a plan in place, it's pretty clear to see that. The main problem is that it appears he's unwilling to change that plan, and as a result, he's isolating himself from his own party. That's aside from Democrats, many of whom refuse to even consider what he has to say. He's had a rough few months and may not have conducted himself well, but there's no denying that he's done what he can.

In my opinion, If his plan is isolating himself from his own party, and he refuses to change it, then it is likely a bad plan and his refusal to change it is a sign of poor leadership on his part. I'm not sure what he's done that hasn't harmed his reputation or America's standing in the world.

Trump has disavowed the KKK and its leader multiple times

Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio, who committed may awful offenses against minorities and women seems to undermine much of what he says, as actions often speak louder than words

BAMN, ANTIFA, and BLM are left-winged organizations.
ANTIFA and BAMN, specifically, have multiple times undergone "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
Their only goals are to silence right-wingers.

Not quite. ANTIFA/BLM/BAMN's goals are to oppose groups like KKK/Nazi/White Supremacists. Without these hate groups, ANTIFA and the like would not exist.

The KKK's only goal is to silence (or worse) minorities. They, too, should be declared terrorist organizations.

BLM is split between peaceful, misguided, well-meaning protestors and cop/white people haters who are willing to engage in violence. So I'm not ready to label them as terrorists, myself.

Agreed. On both accounts.

 

[SmugViking]

Antifa/Anti-Fa/Anti-Facsist was labeled as domestic terrorists in April of 2016 by the Department of Homeland Security.

Source: FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks

 

[JayTee]

If true, I am not surprised. While their intentions are good, their methods are not. It's unfortunate that the organizations that they oppose continue to remain off the terrorist list, though.