[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 49 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!




File: s56gwenmzc921.jpg (59 KB, 811x457)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
In a dramatic escalation of his efforts to sway public opinion, President Trump chose the gravity of the Oval Office to try to create a sense of crisis in pursuit of an elusive campaign promise.

His speech was a compendium of arguments, some of dubious nature, that he has made before: The border is being overrun by dangerous criminals who have committed violent crimes in this country; migrant women and children are being victimized; the opioid crisis stems directly from a flood tide of illegal drugs crossing the southern border; his plan to secure that border includes advanced technology, more law enforcement personnel and, yes, a barrier costing $5.7 billion that would be made of steel slats, in deference, he said, to Democrats who oppose a concrete wall — a change Democrats say they never asked for.

Ultimately, there will have to be an agreement to reopen the government, though exactly on whose terms remains the sticking point. Trump may hope he can get his wall by means other than compromise; Democrats may think they can crush Trump right at the start of a new Congress. That is the nature of the standoff and the reason the president felt the need to use the ultimate bully pulpit to make his case Tuesday night.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-the-oval-office-to-try-to-create-a-border-crisis/2019/01/08/13cbe77c-139b-11e9-803c-4ef28312c8b9_story.html?utm_term=.65567c321040
>>
>>337010
This is not the language of journalism.
>>
Okay Vladimir. Thank you for your insightful comment.
>>
>>337010
Gayest opinion piece I have read all day.
The left hates American citzens, Nancy and Chuck made that abundantly clear last night.
>>
>>337026
The projection from the GOP is fucking staggering. Trump went out there and basically did nothing but viciously slander immigrants and paint them all as gang members and murderers and you have the gall to say Nancy and Chuck showed hate for American Citizens? Fucking quote me what they said bitch. You are beyond delusional. You are legitimately on the same tier of craziness as a guy who is talking to people no one can see.
>>
>>337030
Shut up you American hating piece of trash.
Things like you belong in shallow unmarked graves
>>
>>337017
Are you aware that everyone can see where you are posting from. Mr Airforcebase
>>
>>337034
>Mr Airforcebase
That would explain a lot about the state of this board
>>
>>337043
I mean I shitpost from an AFRL but Im just waiting for 30 something docker containers to link up, I dont get shillbux
>>
>>337010
They didn't mention that ice agents were talking about steel slats because they could see through them and see what's on the other side.
>>
>>337046
I heard it was gonna be transparent aluminium.
>>
Is that an image of Sylvester Stallone holding a knife to Race Bannon's throat?
>>
>>337030
>Trump went out there and basically did nothing but viciously slander immigrants
*Illegal immigrants
You completely idiotic trash mam
>>
>>337052
Do you think he cares to make that distinction in policy?
>>
>>337056
You don't think that a border wall has anything to do with green card policy do you?
>>
Reminder: there is no national emergency, there's not even a regular emergency. Border crossings have been consistently trending down for several years and there are fewer crossings than there have been in decades. Nothing that is happening on the border is so bad that it should bypass Congress. An emergency is generally thought of as something that needs to happen ASAP but a several thousand mile wall that requires eminent domain over private land will *not* be built quickly. A national emergency is something that literally threatens the country and demands immediate action but there's absolutely nothing going on right now that requires that.

Also the funding bill that the current House passed to reopen the government passed 100-0 in the Senate a few weeks ago in the last session. Congress has the votes to reopen the government *without* Trump. The only reason Republicans wont is that they have more loyalty to Trump than to their own country.
>>
>>337056
"I have the same IQ as the average glass of water"
>>
>>337064
Do you think a border wall will actually prevent anyone from coming over, when most illegal immigrants come in legally and overstay their visas?
>>
>>337313
Yes. Because 25-40% of the illegal immigrants cross along the southern border illegally. And for people overstaying their visas there is vetting. If the US government lets you come for a year on a student visa and you stay for 2 years, you are being an illegal immigrant, but you've also been vetted and aren't a terrorist. Meanwhile border patrol picks up a known terrorist a month at the border.
>>
>>337348
>border patrol picks up a known terrorist a month at the border
citation VERY needed.
>>
>>337348
No, they find someone on the terror watch list once a month. That's very different from finding a known terrorist, as you'd know if you ever heard the fuss the NRA makes whenever someone suggests barring people on the terror watch list from buying guns. To date, no one caught trying to cross the southern border has been convicted of terrorism.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/only-six-immigrants-terrorism-database-stopped-cbp-southern-border-first-n955861
> Overall, 41 people on the Terrorist Screening Database were encountered at the southern border from Oct. 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, but 35 of them were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Six were classified as non-U.S. persons.
> On the northern border, CBP stopped 91 people listed in the database, including 41 who were not American citizens or residents.
> The U.S. keeps databases of people it believes may have ties to terrorist networks based on their spending activities, travel patterns, family ties or other activities. It is not a list of people who could be criminally charged under terrorism statutes, and it is possible that someone could be stopped because they have the same name as a person on the list.
>>
>>337045
I don't think hes talking about shillbux, it's that bored soldiers shitpost here. I haven't met a soldier with political opinions worth remembering, especially Marines.
>>
>>337354
So they pick up a suspected terrorist a month during that period of time.
October 1 to March 31st seems like some funny numbers to me. It's like stats tracking terrorism that start September 12th 2001. you can say 9/11 was an outlier, but every terrorist attack is an outlier because the United States is a peaceful nation. I would have to do some more research on the numbers before I can deem where Oct 1 2017 to March 31 2018 fits on the distribution chart
>>
>>337393
And to further this, looking at the headlines they're clearly skewing the article using their language to say the terrorist threat crossing the border is being exaggerated by Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least 1 terrorist picked up September 30th and April 1st
>>
>>337393
>>337395
>Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen told reporters on Monday the exact number, which NBC News is first to report, was classified but that she was working on making it public. The data was the latest set on this topic provided to Congress. It is possible that the data was updated since that time, but not provided to Congress.

Seems like this time frame was relevant for some specific Congressional inquiry and the broader, yearly statistics are considered classified. Maybe the DHS secretary will hold true to her word and reveal the full numbers, but I doubt it given general reluctance to declassify national security data.
>>
>>337056
He quite frequently does in fact make that distinction
>>
>>337032
>american hating
What's wrong with this?
>>
>>337032
Struck a nerve? I mean he's right; you are delusional.
>>
>>337430
>>337424
Russians are out in full force today
>>
>>337395
> they're clearly skewing the article using their language to say the terrorist threat crossing the border is being exaggerated by Trump
Because it is. The Trump administration has said that there are thousands of terrorists coming in across the southern border, when in reality the number of people convicted of terrorism after being caught crossing that border is zero. There has never been a confirmed case of a terrorist caught crossing the southern border.

> I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least 1 terrorist picked up September 30th and April 1st
Do you have any proof of that? Just because they picked up someone on the watch list doesn't mean much considering there are more than 1.8 million people on that list. And people often don't have unique names so on top of that you have all the people who share a name with one of those 1.8 million people.
>>
>>337547
>There has never been a confirmed case of a terrorist caught crossing the southern border.
I remember hearing that it was in the single digits. Not contradicting you, neither of those numbers are 4,000; just curious.

Am I thinking suspected versus convicted?
>>
>>337547
While technically true that no one caught AT the southern border has been convicted of terrorism, I think it is important for the sake of accuracy to mention the one case of a terrorist who did cross the border, albeit as a child long before becoming a terrorist.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/07/us/politics/ap-us-trump-terrorism-fact-check.html
> The libertarian CATO Institute said that from 1975 through 2017, seven people who entered the U.S. illegally from "special interest" countries — states tied at least loosely to terrorism — were convicted of planning attacks on U.S. soil. None crossed from Mexico. They came from Canada or jumped ship in U.S. ports, and all before special interest countries were classified as such. The plots were foiled and no one was hurt.

> The only known terrorists who crossed illegally from Mexico in those decades were three ethnic Albanians from Macedonia who came as children with their parents in 1984 and, in their 20s, were arrested in the foiled plot to attack the Fort Dix, New Jersey, Army base in 2007, the CATO study found. They were not from a special-interest country.

So while they did become terrorists, when they crossed the border in 1984 they were children at the time and didn't become terrorists until they were radicalized inside the United States many years later.
>>
Actually, Trump's last desperate ploy is going to be evoking emergency powers and try to make himself a dictator, which his advisors are pushing because they think the courts will strike it down. (Ignoring the fact that the Republican courts have upheld some of his more anti American plans.)

If Trump gets to keep his new powers, he'd not only going to weaken the military in order to get his wall, but he's going to abuse his powers to attack his political enemies. Like how gavin newsom rebuked Trump during his inaugural, and Trump responded by saying he's going to cut off emergency relief to the state leaving millions to suffer just out of spite.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/10/18175957/national-emergency-declare-legal-constitution
>>
>>337915
>Actually, Trump's last desperate ploy is going to be evoking emergency powers and try to make himself a dictator,
Emergency powers to use the military to build the wall, faggot
Go choke down a log from Nikki six
>>
>>337917
wont happen. just wait, thats what he will do. they passed the budget last year, thats what this is about. They won't pass a budget the gov will reopen with the republican budget. Just like obama did. This is a stale play and not news
>>
>>337034
>everyone can see where you are posting from
What? How?
>>
>>337010
isn't it illegal to exercise emergency powers when there is no emergency?
>>
>>338021
300000 illegals coming over the border every year is an emergency
>>
>>337010
>opioid crisis is caused by migrants

This is the greatest lie that big pharma has ever spun.
>>
>>338024
>This is the greatest lie that big pharma has ever spun.
True, the opioid crisis was clearly caused by boomers.
>>
>>338022
No. You don't seem to know basic words.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/emergency
Nothing unexpected or sudden about that.
>>
>>337052
Most of the people in the caravan, the people Trump is talking about most of the time now, are asking for asylum; that is perfectly legal.
>>
>>337067
ya but u gay
>>
>>338024
>>338026
It was caused by China
>>
>>337917
If you think he's just going to use his powers just to do that, you're a naive idiot.
>>
>>338054
>a naive idiot.
Or as we like to call them, Trump supporters.
>>
>>338865
That too.

As for why Trump hasn't committed to his dictator power play to steal funding for his ego momentum from the American tax payers and declare a state of emergency. it's because it becomes a massive lose/lose for the Republicans with two outcomes.

1. Trump declares state of emergency, it's immediately taken to court and gets struck down. Trump's a loser. Again.

Now option 2 would cause a lot more long term damage to Republicans.

2. Trump declares state of emergency, it's immediately taken to court, but the courts side with him. That sounds like a good thing, but it's a Pyrrhic victory in the grandest sense for Republicans, because assuming Trump and the Republicans don't destroy America, The moment democrats take power again, they can use what Trump did as precedent to override Republican obstruction. Like climate change, an actual national security threat could suddenly see the president going after the fossil fuel industry with their new powers. That would fuck over a bunch of the Republicans major owners.

Out of desperation Trump might attempt it since it's clear Democrats won't break because it's obvious Trump has proven he can't be trusted or negotiated with in good faith, and all the polls moving further in the democratic direction of blaming Trump for the shutdown. (It really didn't help Trump that he announced he'd own the shutdown if it happened.)
>>
>>339032
>It really didn't help Trump that he announced he'd own the shutdown if it happened.
This specifically, for some reason, made me realize what drives Q Anons: they can't believe a man can shoot his own foot so many times.
>>
>>339051
It's almost like Trump is a retard who only looks at things through the immediate moment and doesn't consider any short or long term consequences unless someone beats him over the head with it.
>>
Last year Trump rejected a deal that would have given him $25 billion for border security in exchange for a guarantee that DACA recipients would be protected while DACA is being worked out in the courts.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chuck-schumer-withdraws-offer-of-25-billion-for-trumps-border-wall/


In just last few weeks all 100 Senators signed a deal to fund the government and absolutely no one was concerned about a wall. All of a sudden it became a huge emergency after Ann Coulter called Trump weak on Fox News.
>>
>>339058
>Ann Coulter called Trump weak on Fox News.
Probably one of the only things I agree with Ann Coulter about, who gets bullied by a skinwalker?
>>
>>339102
Are you insane?


>>
>>337010
>that pic
i find it highly amusing that progressive ladyboi pussies like to fantasize about being rambo, or that anybody might be afraid of the "repurcussions" they are threatening to dole out, lmao
>>
>>337010
seriously, i'm trying to read OP post but I can't stop laughing at that picture
>(spoken in high-pitched fat commie pansie voice) if you don't give me my foodstamps you're gonna get the knife! I really mean it!
lmao
>>
>>337030
you do know that illegal immigrants aren't american citizens, right? I'm not seeing how you can make a comparison like that if you had that knowledge...
>>
>>337313
walls dont work guys. thats why you never see any walls anywhere. go take a walk outside, see that? no walls. walls don't magically account for every conceivable situation, therefore nobody ever bothers to build them. silly orange man and his walls.
>>
>>337363
You're talking about people who willingly choose to die for corporate interests. They're not worth remembering, let alone their opinions, let alone their political ones.
>>
>>341619
and here, the bitter heart of an effeminate lefty is revealed. The rage they feel at their impotent existence overspills, and they curse real men from afar, wishing secretly in their twisted souls, hidden almost even from their own consciousness, , that they could be a real man too. but alas, it is not destined to be. and so they cry out in the night, a bitter, womanly squeal in the wind.
>>
>>341616
You mean the walls that are always in cities and towns, separating human occupied, closed space, and privately owned buildings and properties from the outside? To answer your question, no I don't often see walls separating entire open spaced deserts, forests, and grasslands, which are not privately owned by any single entity. This describes most of where the border wall would be built on.
>>
>>341622
>I came with stipulations, they are many
I feel like i shouldn't have to explain walls to people. It's really, really not a new thing. no they aren't magic and impenetrable to every possible situation. It's a fucking wall. people been doing it for thousands of years
>>
>>341622
if you ever left your progressive shithole city you would notice that any highway you drive down there are almost always fences surrounding entire open spaced deserts, forests, and grasslands. You're just an NPC who wants immigration for no particular reason and a wall is a symbol against what you think you want. the funny thing is that corporations/media/movies/etc have paid a lot of money to implant that idea into your unsuspecting, NPC brain. and you don't even really know why you think anything at all.
>>
>>341627
>pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt
No, dumbass. The wall is an unpopular idea, in GENERAL, because

1. it's expensive - waay more than $5b.
2. it's ineffective - the vast majority of illegal crossings occur at legal points of entry.
and a distant third, it's ugly and defies the American ideal of the great melting pot.

And no, I don't live in a big city. I live in a tiny town in New Mexico of less than 50,000.
>>
>>341660
are you a jew? you sound like one
>>
>>337393
>United States is a peaceful nation.

We're literally always at war, and shootings are so common that they often don't make the news. Most people live peaceful lives, but saying we are a peaceful nation is only true if we're being compared to Africa or the Middle East. By 1st world standards this is place is a hell hole.

t. Proud American
>>
>>341665
>New Mexico

Probably a spic.
>>
>>341627
>if you ever left your progressive shithole city you would notice that any highway you drive down there are almost always fences surrounding entire open spaced deserts, forests, and grasslands.
But that's the opposite of how that is. It's also to keep animals of the road, you silly.
>>
>>341734
Also because those grasslands and etc are privately owned and the owner wants people not trespassing.

See, now the Trumptard is going to 'complete the metaphor by saying the same should be true at the Southern Border, which again, AGAIN, ignores how the vast majority of illegal traffic tales place - through legitimate ports of entry.

I want this stupid argument buried. A WALL ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER IS NOT LIKE BUILDING A FENCE AROUND YOUR YARD.
>>
>>341750
Not to mention the migrant caravan at the border (which is what started this stupid wall shutdown) is made up of people legally seeking asylum at legal ports of entry and a wall would not stop them. Nor would it stop the overwhelming majority of drugs that are smuggled in through legal ports of entry.
>>
>>341750
maybe if you yell it you'll be right? it's exactly the same. No, its not all private land, not even close https://publiclands.org/
the vast majority isn't through "legiitimate ports" either you ideologue retard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwDqBEgZMFE
there's going to be a bigger wall, with or without trump. it's inevitable because people build walls, the more people there are the more walls there are. ever been to SoCal? it's progress, and it's gonna happen, so get used to the idea
>>
>>341752
half of the migrant caravan people are fat and their reason for seeking "asylum" is claiming they're starving. you need a new brain someone opened your head and took a big progressive shit in it.
>>
>>341757
I'm guessing you have a source for that? Regardless it doesn't matter they still have a right to be heard. Most people seeking asylum don't get it though.
>>
>>341755
Ahh, YouTube links. Because you couldn't find a proper study to back up that opinion.

Nah, I'm not giving that shit a view. Link a proper article, a proper study, or shut your mouth.
>>
>>337030
Every single illegal immigrant is a criminal. Prove me wrong.
>>
>>341766
>video is produced by the Texas Tribune, a credible & major non-profit news outlet
>still doesn't watch the video
>still somehow knows it's 'not proper'

>Nah, I'm not giving that shit a view.
Then you concede the argument. His source is valid. Your objection to it is not.
>>
>>341768
Then link the Texas Tribune website, you dumb motherfucker.
>>
>>341767
Shifting the question. Which ones are illegal?
>>
>>341768
I actually watched it, and one 'coyote' does not a trend make.

This is a top tier example of right wing sensationalism - ignore the actual statistics in favor of a YouTube video you found of one specific case that agrees with you.

This is the same logic antivaxxers use.
>>
>>341770
>Then link the Texas Tribune website, you dumb motherfucker.
Why, so you can get the same video from a different, arbitrary link? It was literally posted by their own YouTube channel you sealioning dunce.

>I actually watched it, and one 'coyote' does not a trend make.
>This is a top tier example of right wing sensationalism - ignore the actual statistics in favor of a YouTube video you found of one specific case that agrees with you.
Feel free to present your own counter evidence then, instead of whining and trying to find backhanded ways to get out of actually having to address your opponents argument like the disingenuous WaPo shill you are.

>This is the same logic antivaxxers use.
We're not talking about anti-vaxxers. Stop trying to derail the thread and address your opponents argument. Or, concede the argument. Your choice.
>>
>>341777
>Feel free to present your own counter evidence then
WITH. PLEASURE.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/despite-trumps-claims-most-illegal-immigration-is-not-at-the-southern-border.html
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683662691/where-does-illegal-immigration-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/visa-overstays-outnumber-illegal-border-crossings-trend-expected-continue-n730216

Read, nigga, READ!
>>
>>341788
And how does anything you posted relate to anything in the video? Feel free to post examples from the links you're trying to hide behind.
>>
>>341788
Okay. And can you show me the crime stats of people who illegally cross the border, vs people who overstay their visa?
If you are going to the united states on say a student visa, you have a thorough background check. That type of illegal immigration is different in kind than breaking into the country, like a thief in the night.
>>
>>341791
It doesn't, because it's talking Bout the actual paths illegals use to get in. You can out the goalposts down now.

>>341794
I literally just did.
>>
>>341794
>And can you show me the crime stats of people who illegally cross the border, vs people who overstay their visa?
That's one of the link names, did you even read anything before posting?
>>
>>341804
>It doesn't, because it's talking Bout the actual paths illegals use to get in. You can out the goalposts down now.
Do you really just have a go to list of logical fallacies you throw out like anti-missile flares everytime you're presented with an argument you can't refute? Because the goal posts have not moved.
>>
>>341807
No, I know them by heart because you KEEP USING THEM.

The crux of the argument was about how illegals are getting in. Anon posted a video showing ONE group entering by crossing the border. He didn't demonstrate that this accounts for a majority of illegal entire, which would refute >>341750 whose entire point was that THIS IS NOT HOW MOST ILLEGALS ENTER.

This is, AGAIN, why the border wall is a bad solution - it's extremely pricey and doesn't solve the major problem.
>>
>>341806
>The study by the CMS divides the 2014 population into two groups: those who enter with a valid temporary visa, but subsequently “overstay” and establish residence in the U.S. without authorization and those who “enter without inspection” (EWI) through the southern border without proper immigration documents.

>According to the report, in 2014, 42 percent of all undocumented persons in the U.S. were “overstays.”

>Of those who arrived or joined the undocumented population in 2014, 66 percent were overstays.

It doesn't show the crime stats of the EWI group though. And that's what I was asking about. I hear the media talking about illegal immigrants committing less crime, but they don't distinguish between people overstaying, and the people who broke in. What Trump appears to be positing, and I believe to be true, is that when it's someone overstaying a visa, we know who they are, and we approved their entry into the country in the first place.
With people who cross over the border illegally, they are a self selecting group that doesn't chooses to break in, instead of overstaying a visa, because they can't get a visa, because they are criminals or something similar.
I want the crime stats on EWI Illegal immigrants
>>
>>341811
To rephrase. There are two types of illegals, the people who overstay their visa, and the EWI/break ins.
The people who overstay their visa, can get a visa, they're not a suspected terrorist and so on.
The EWIs cannot get a visa. That's why they spend a week crossing the dessert instead of taking a bus to Dallas and disappaering.
People overstaying their visas is a different class of people, with a different solution.
The wall is solving the EWI problem, which has the more dangerous illegals entering the country, and is the bigger threat, which is why he's doing it first
>>
>>341815
>With people who cross over the border illegally, they are a self selecting group that doesn't chooses to break in, instead of overstaying a visa, because they can't get a visa, because they are criminals or something similar.
Well, first off, what I've heard is that most of them do that because they don't have an alternative. Which is sad, but they are still violating the law.

Anyway, this illustrates a very interesting point. Many of the arguments about tighter border security I've heard don't make a distinction about how the illegals get here, because once they're here, they're still parasites on the system, right? So obviously the best path is to prevent as many illegals from getting in as possible.

But a wall wouldn't really help with this, for reasons that have already been addressed. So what we REALLY need is a more robust legal immigration & visa system. More workers in immigration courts to make sure the paperwork doesn't fall lax, to track the migrants for whom it DOES, and overall make the bureaucracy less painful.

Hardening back to the beginning of my post, this could also reduce the number of illegal border crossings, because less people will try the riskier, illegal path out of convenience. Most people don't break the law unless they have no other choice.
>>
>>341820
>The wall is solving the EWI problem, which has the more dangerous illegals entering the country, and is the bigger threat, which is why he's doing it first
I call interogative. Why is it the bigger problem? I hear a lot more people concerned about illegals sapping welfare and healthcare than of illegals committing crime.
>>
>>341824
Because of the cost of human lives.
José Inez García Zárate shooting Kathryn Steinle is a classic example.
Breaks into the country 6 times, gets deported 5 times, and then kills an American citizen after a life spent selling heroine and smuggling drugs.
You have to understand that it's a small amount of people that commit a disproportionate amount of crimes. And that's what this is meant to deal with. If José Inez García Zárate never enters the country, we don't have to worry about the millions spent on his trial, and Kate is still alive
>>
>>341841
>breaks into the country 6 times
>totally wouldn't bring a ladder over to scale a wall
>>
>>341627
No they aren't. Highways have mostly no fences or walls to the side of them, unless you're counting privately built fences at least 10 meters off the side of the freeway. They're only ever walled off in some parts of urban areas and on bridges, and those walls are mostly chest-high or lower.
>>
>>341859
A lot of "walls" I see are those sound walls to block highway noise, but I don't know how prevalent those are elsewhere.
>>
>>341852
This. Increased surveillance and patrol is the solution. Walls are 20th century.
>>
>>341852
Perhaps
It would still make it more difficult
How much does it cost for us to have locks installed in Federal, state, and local levels. Given every US government building ever built, it's easily over 5 billion dollars.

Why? If someone is going to break into a water treatment plant, they'll not be stopped by a locked door.
Would you want a law passed that prevented the installing of any lock in a government building?
>>
>>341660
>illegal crossings occur at legal points of entry
Sorry. Maybe I'm a dumb shit. But can you please describe to me how this particular oxymoron works?
>>
>>341959
Things like tunnels have existed since forever. You also would be hard pressed to man every inch of such a wall across its entire length, there would be a lot of blind spots (where people don't just travel in the numerous tunnels)

"It would still make it more difficult" isn't even remotely true, it would do nothing but cost the American taxpayer 5 billion dollars.
>>
>>342545
Someone with a legal passport or a good fake packs15 Mexicans in a car then goes through a border security checkpoint and hopes they don't search too hard. It's literal human trafficking. They pack them in the trunk, under the floor, and even in the car seats. If you google "immigrants packed in car" you'll get some crazy shit in image search because it's a high risk operation and they get caught all the time.

I know a dude from Cali from who used to steal cars and radios as a teenager. He told about a time that one car who broke into was making weird sounds. He popped the trunk and there was a whole family of four in there. It was a hot summer day, and the dude who was trafficking them just abandoned them and never let them out for some reason. He alerted the police then they all got medical treatment and most likely deported. It wouldn't surprise me if they came back again.
>>
>>341959
How would a wall running through a random patch of desert "make it more difficult" for someone to fly into the country on a plane or drive through a checkpoint in a truck? Because that's how most illegal immigrants get in.
>>
>>342569
See
>>341820
They are two different problems with two different solutions. The border wall deals with one of them, and is more pertinent as the cost is not in money but human lives and dignity >>341841
>>
>>342546
And lockpicks have existed since the dawn of locks.
Would you want a law passed that prevented the installing of any lock in a government building?
>>
>>342612
Apples and oranges. The issue with the wall is that it will cost billions of dollars to build for almost no effect. The wall isn't even a law to be passed, its a construction project, and people who are against the wall are not necessarily against border security.

If you really want to crack down on illegal immigration, you want something like visa reform and enforcement since the majority of illegal immigrants are people who come into the US legally and overstay their visas.
>>
>>342829
But this is all about Trump's ego because when he's executed for treason, we'll be stuck with his wall. Unless we tear it down just to spite him



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.