Donald Trump

Trump’s Wall Is Performance Art, Not Border Security

The president's wall promise rests on the same basis as a Ponzi scheme.

|

Donald Trump loves the ceremonial parts of his job, and his trip to California to inspect prototypes for a border wall was pure theater. He got to project toughness, point to something tangible, make big promises, and take credit—without actually accomplishing anything. He's not a president; he's a performance artist.

Of all his campaign pledges, none was more appealing to those at his rallies than the border wall, and none was more harebrained. The idea of creating an impermeable vacuum seal on our southern perimeter was appealing to opponents of immigration (legal or not) and drug smuggling. Forcing Mexico to pick up the tab made it irresistible.

Never mind that the idea had as much chance of materializing as a rainforest in the Sonoran Desert. Even Trump has hedged: "We don't need 2,000 (miles). We need 1,000, because we have natural barriers." But promising a 1,000-mile wall with hundreds of miles of holes might not have stoked raucous cheers from his crowds.

The cost would be enormous. An internal report by the Department of Homeland Security put the price at $21.6 billion. A study by the Democratic staff of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee calculated it at $70 billion, not counting maintenance. That's more than $200 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.—and zero dollars for every man, woman and child in Mexico.

Those who would be most directly affected show the least enthusiasm. Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas), whose district includes 800 miles of the Mexican border, says "a wall from sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security." The Texas Border Coalition, made up of mayors and other officials from the area, calls it a "false promise." For his Tuesday gala, Trump went to San Diego, whose City Council passed a resolution opposing the wall—which the Republican mayor declined to veto.

Trump claimed his wall would be "99 percent" effective, which is enough to make a lizard laugh. There is no reason to think endless slabs of concrete would stop illegal immigration or drug smuggling.

The Congressional Research Service looked at the experience of the "primary fence" built in San Diego and concluded that it, "by itself, did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego." The main result, the CRS found, was that "the flow of illegal immigration … shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert."

As for drugs, the Coast Guard says 95 percent of them arrive in container ships or other boats. Traffickers have discovered that the existing fence doesn't block underground tunnels, of which the Border Patrol has found hundreds.

Migrants have also found ways that don't involve dodging rattlesnakes. Two-thirds of the undocumented foreigners living here didn't sneak across the border; they came on temporary visas and forgot to leave. "So unless the wall is 35,000 feet high, it's not going to do much to stop those overstaying these visas," Robert Warren, a fellow at the Center for Migration Studies, told The New York Times.

It would, however, wreak havoc. Some landowners would be cut off from access to some of their own acreage, as well as water sources, and see their properties decline in value. They would also have to gaze upon the wall, in its full Soviet-bloc ugliness, every day.

Then there are the environmental harms. The Center for Biological Diversity reports that 93 wildlife species would be adversely affected. "This may well lead to the extinction of the jaguar, ocelot, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl and other species in the United States," it says.

All this assumes Trump's vision will come to pass. Hoover Institution economist John Cochrane notes that much of the barrier would have to be erected in California. That's the same state where the governor and Legislature have been pushing for a decade to build a high-speed train—"yet not one mile of the line yet exists." By contrast, Cochrane notes, "it took the Union Pacific four years to build the transcontinental railroad from Sacramento to Utah, over the Donner Pass, by hand."

But it doesn't matter for Trump. His wall promise rests on the same basis as a Ponzi scheme. It doesn't have to work in the end. It just has to work long enough to fleece the gullible.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

95 responses to “Trump’s Wall Is Performance Art, Not Border Security

  1. The Congressional Research Service looked at the experience of the “primary fence” built in San Diego and concluded that it, “by itself, did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego.” The main result, the CRS found, was that “the flow of illegal immigration … shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert.”

    So… it worked. Stopped border crossing in SD and forced the route to Arizona, where there is no barrier. The second sentence completely contradicts the first.

    Guess those lizards got the last laugh (Wtf says that?)

    1. See the article about the complete transformation of San Diego by the wall. http://dailysignal.com/2017/05…..san-diego/

      1989 > 100,000 crimes in San Diego
      Current < 30,000

      1. before I looked at the check 4 $4494 , I have faith that my father in law could really erning money part time from there pretty old laptop. . there sisters neighbour haz done this 4 less than fifteen months and resantly repayed the depts on there mini mansion and got a top of the range Cadillac . visit this page

        LOOK HERE MORE http://www.richdeck.com

    2. Chapman is a dummy after all. So of course the article is nonsensical contradictory shit.

    3. Begin winning $90/hourly to work online from your home for couple of hours every day… Get customary installment on a week after week premise… All you require is a PC, web association and a litte extra time…

      Read more here…….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. Border walls work. Look at Hungary. Look at San Diego crime statistics. Look Israel.

    Yet the leftists keep making straw man arguments like: “The idea of creating an impermeable vacuum seal on our southern perimeter…”

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. Did anyone mention “impermeable”? Of course not.

  3. All politics is “performance art”. Affecting perceptions of the individual and masses is the basis of every policy discussion. Is that so difficult to understand?

    The wall is primarily “performance art”, designed to be a symbolic effort to improve border security, that according to most polls, the vast majority of voters wish to see.
    $21 billion is chump change in the grand scheme of things.

    Whether on not it’s effective for reducing illegal border crossings is certainly open for debate. But even mild reduction serves an enormous purpose. Any rational immigration reform proponent, either for tightening/limiting, or full amnesty benefits politically by having a perception of improved border security.

    1. Unless you believe that everyone, including criminals and terrorists, should be able to cross the border, you can’t object to border security. Better border security is a benefit of letting more people in legally. If more people can enter legally, then fewer law abiding people will enter illegally and it will be easier to stop criminals from doing so. So trading increased border security for more legal immigration should not be a trade at all. It should be something pro immigration people want and will propose themselves.

      Yet, the open borders people never make this argument or ever propose to increase border security even in return for greater legal immigration. They don’t because, despite their claims to the contrary, they don’t think the government should be able to stop even criminals or terrorists from entering the country. So for them, all border security of any kind is bad.

      1. Actually, John, both parties are fine with shoveling more and more money to ICE, in case you hadn’t noticed.

        they don’t think the government should be able to stop even criminals or terrorists from entering the country.

        And border restrictionists just want a sealed border because they’re racisty racists.

        See I can play that game too!

        But seriously, I think only a very few people want zero border security. What I and others object to is “border security” that is just security theater (i.e., the Great Wall of Trump) or “border security” that involves hassling otherwise innocent people for just being here without the proper government-approved papers. Most of what the border security people do is not about catching known criminals or terrorists.

        1. Very few people say they want zero border security. But a lot of people say they want security but then object to every proposal to increase border security and refuse to agree to increased border security even if it comes with the benefit of increasing legal immigration. Their actions show what they actually believe. If you don’t object to border security, stop objecting to border security and trying to undermine the security that exists. And that is exactly what open borders advocates do.

          And yes, open borders people always call anyone who disagrees with them racists and assume the worst motives of their opponents. So, they really can’t complain when their opponent infer bad motives on their part. I don’t understand why you think calling me a racist is shocking or makes any point. It is what open borders advocates do. Calling people racists and assuming bad faith is most of their argument.

          1. How about this John. I’ll support border security if it means the type that catches actual criminals and terrorists, and not lettuce pickers in California, if you agree to drop support for “border security” that is just security theater, or has no connection to bona fide criminal activity. So no more support for the wall, and no more ICE raids on private businesses that are doing nothing but employing peaceful people. Deal?

            But I think what you really want is to demand support for “border security” which includes a pointless wall, and which includes government thugs deporting people who aren’t criminals.

            1. Jeff, your position is unreasonable, unconstitutional, toxic bullshit. John’s is correct.

              Just admit you are completely wrong, and apologize to John for your impertinence.

      2. That straw man won’t be bothering anyone soon.

        1. Why is it a straw man? Show me where open borders advocate ever agree to increase border security? If you can’t, then it is not a strawman.

          1. You imply that open borders people welcome criminals and terrorists. You’re pulling the leftist trick of attacking a person’s motivations and intentions. A combination between straw man and ad hominem. You didn’t earn your nickname for nothin.

            1. I don’t think they welcome them. But they don’t think we should make any effort to stop them coming in. I don’t think they want it to happen. But they view enforcing borders as a bigger evil than allowing criminals and terrorists to cross.

              1. I’m not an open borders person, and I can’t see into their heads. However I don’t think a wall would pass a cost-benefit analysis. That and I don’t want the southern border to look like East Berlin.

                1. That and I don’t want the southern border to look like East Berlin

                  Wasn’t that wall primarily to keep people in?

                  Yeah.

                  1. Walls to keep people out can be used to keep people in.

                  2. Wasn’t that wall primarily to keep people in?

                    Yes, and we want to keep people in Mexico.

            2. “You imply that open borders people welcome criminals and terrorists”

              No, but they do consider them acceptable collateral damage, because there must be open borders at any cost.

  4. ” A study by the Democratic staff ”

    Seriously, you’re not willing to credit Republican estimates of the benefit of stopping illegal immigration, but Democratic estimates of the cost of a wall, those are totally credible?

    1. When it comes to the cost of a government project, I generally find the highest estimate the most credible. When it comes to benefits, I’m more likely to believe the lowest estimate.

      1. Take the highest estimate, double it, and you’ll still be short.

  5. He’s not a president; he’s a performance artist.

    Hey, don’t tell the flyover riff-raff that! They actually believe him.

    1. The crowd at WWE cheers the face and hisses at the heel. You know your part don’t you PB?

  6. He’s not a president; he’s a performance artist

    Back before the president was the king, arguably back when the president was filling the role the constitution demanded, it was often said that the power of the president was the bully pulpit.

    If most of that is true, then performance artist is precisely what a president should be doing.

  7. If it is performance art and will do nothing to secure the border, then why not agree to it in return for legalizing the DACA people? Yeah, it costs money, but the government wastes money all of the time. Moreover, if legalizing the DACA people is so important and giving Trump his wall the price for doing it, it is in that way money well spent.

    I am sorry but I don’t believe it when the open borders people claim the wall won’t make any difference. They honestly believed that to be true, they would jump at the chance to agree to build it in return for meaningful concessions from Trump. The fact that they don’t is a very good indication that they think the wall would work and agreeing to build it would not be a good deal no matter what the concessions.

    1. Unless they think it is a waste of money, and they don’t want the southern border to look like East Berlin.

      1. Again, the government wastes a lot of money. How is wasting some money not a price worth paying if increasing legal immigration is so important? If Trump offered to end the drug war in return for building the wall, would you turn down that offer too? If you would, you are a fool. Same thing here.

        1. How did the wall work out for China?

          1. Again, if the wall doesn’t work, then agreeing to have it built is even less of a price to pay for increased legal immigration than it would be if it did work. If increasing legal immigration is so important, why aren’t you willing to agree to spend a few billion dollars on a wall you claim won’t make any difference to get it?

            1. I’d support increased legal immigration without a wall. Criminals are gonna criminal. Locks keep honest people honest, but they don’t stop crooks. Same with a wall. How many drug tunnels do they find a year? How many do you think they miss? I understand the intentions of a wall. I just don’t believe it would accomplish its goal.

              1. You can’t have that. But you can have increased immigration with the wall. So why not agree to it?

                1. So why not agree to it?

                  I’ve told you many times in many different ways. Just not the way you like. This is like when Tony keeps asking why blacks vote for Democrats. And he keeps asking and asking because he want’s to hear “Because they’re inferior.” But nobody gives him the answer he wants. So he keeps asking and asking…

                  1. There is no guarantee you will ever get increased legal immigration without giving on the wall. Your position is that you would rather risk never getting any increased legal immigration then get all you want now in return for agreeing to the wall?

                    If that is your position, good for you. But it doesn’t seem to be a very reasonable one or one that is going to result in you ever getting the increased legal immigration you claim to want.

                    1. Honestly, it just isn’t that important to me. I’m not rabidly for or against immigration. I did have experience with Mexican immigrants when I lived in Colorado. Some were the hardest working people I’ve ever met. Other were dealing drugs. Could say the same thing about non-immigrants. Well, except the part about working hard.

                    2. Then you are not who I am talking about here. If you don’t care about increasing immigration, then I can see why you wouldn’t want to agree to build the wall in return for increased immigration. But a lot of people do claim to care a whole lot about increasing immigration. And those are who I am talking about not you.

                    3. In principle I support increased immigration and no wall. However I’m not passionate about it.

                    4. I’ll tell you one thing. A wall meant to keep people out is also a wall to keep people in. We’re headed towards a totalitarian state anyway. I’d rather have a totalitarian state without a wall.

                    5. Then you are not who I am talking about here.

                      No one is. You’re arguing against a straw man.

                    6. Just because you don’t have the position doesn’t mean no one does. I honestly don’t think you understand what the term strawman actually means.

                    7. Straw man is when you argue against a position that someone does not hold. You set it up and then knock it down.

              2. Locks can’t stop crooks? Bullshit. It just doesn’t stop ALL of them. The locks and security doors and windows in my house might not stop every possible criminal from breaking and entering, but it will stop almost all of them.

                Or more to the point, if you believe your own statement, do you have a policy of leaving your car and home unlocked?

          2. Really well, as I recall. Stopped the Huns for centuries.

      2. and they don’t want the southern border to look like East Berlin.

        Keep repeating this stupid line.

      3. Unless they think it is a waste of money

        The concept of ‘stimulus spending’ makes that possibility unlikely.

      4. Unless they think it is a waste of money, and they don’t want the southern border to look like East Berlin.

        The border to East Berlin was quite effective, so that seems like an argument in favor of the wall.

  8. Of all his campaign pledges, none was more appealing to those at his rallies than the border wall

    I don’t know, “Lock Her Up!” got a pretty good rating.

    Or maybe it was “Loch Her Up!”, some sort of reference to her being a big fat monster hiding in the murky swamp where nobody could get a good look at her or figure out what exactly she is.

    In either case, the beast still roams free and Trump doesn’t seem the least bit interested in restricting her liberty no matter how much livestock she menaces.

    1. A lot of us knew (know) exactly what she is.

  9. I assume the wall would be built by the Feds, not by California? And “93 species might go extict!” Good grief what FUD.

    1. “might go extinct” just means they won’t and whatever damage to them is done isn’t significant enough to convince anyone. If it was, they would describe the damage instead of giving what amounts to a null set of a claim.

      1. Try telling that to the 93 species that might go extinct

    2. The wall is also likely to prevent jaguars from migrating into Arizona and possibly reestablishing themselves in that state. Jaguars are one of the few natural checks on the Arizona meth-maker population, aside from DEA agents and ‘splosions.

      1. Couldn’t we just import some Jaguars to prey on the local methheads?

        1. What are they going to do? Run them over?

          1. Brain injuries from repeated tackles using the helmet first approach. (No refs down there, you know)

          2. I’m pretty sure being forced to run someone over in a Jaguar is cruel and unusual punishment.

            1. Wouldn’t want to scratch that beautiful British racing green.

        2. As someone who lives in Arizona and is quite happy that it hasn’t been completely fucked up yet by the stupidest animal planet, I say the possibility of the Jaguar re-introduction further north is more important than Drumpfty Dumpty’s stupid wall. As someone who was raised and worked around Mexican people my whole life, I can tell you, they are not our enemy. They just want to work and take care of their families. This whole fear-mongering scare tactic worked well for Trump, which is terrifying.

          1. Once you demonize people, they cease to be people in your mind. After that it is really easy to do things you wouldn’t do to people who you think of as people.

            1. Once you demonize people, they cease to be people in your mind. After that it is really easy to do things you wouldn’t do to people who you think of as people.

              EXACTLY. You won’t find either Team Red or Team Blue enthusiastically supporting the constitutional rights of people whom they don’t even regard to be people in their minds.

  10. “He’s not a president; he’s a performance artist.”
    The difference would be what, exactly?
    Walk me through it.

  11. The wall assuredly have an effectiveness between 0-100%, and both sides will claim numbers close to their preferred end of the spectrum. It will probably be somewhat effective at keeping out people that don’t have a high desire to enter the US. Those who do will find a way.

    If you think a wall will keep drugs from being smuggled across the border then you really aren’t very smart though. That business is so lucrative. Walls around prisons can’t even keep drugs out of prisons. You’re naive if you think the border wall will be more effective than a prison wall.

    In the grand scheme of things, the wall is nothing more than a waste of money, just like 90% of the rest of government spending. As much as I’m for open borders, I don’t really have a problem with a border wall beyond the fact that it’s a waste of money. Do it, don’t do it, it probably doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.

    “That’s more than $200 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.”
    Want to see support for the border wall fall? Put this option in the polling… you can either have a wall on the southern border or receive a $200 check for every person in your household.

    1. $200 would get me out of a lot of jams.

    2. If building the wall can be a way to get Congress and the President to agree to more legal immigration, it isn’t a waste of money. If the wall is so useless, then why not agree to build it in return for increased immigration? That looks like a good deal to me. It is only a bad deal if you think the wall will work and your goal is to increase numbers of immigrants by any means necessary.

      1. “It is only a bad deal if you think the wall will work and your goal is to increase numbers of immigrants by any means necessary.”

        Given that’s not my goal, it’s why I said that I don’t have a problem with a border wall beyond the waste of money aspect.

        I do agree with your basic point. While I’ve at least tried to lay out a principled open-borders argument (basically nobody needs a permission slip from the government to live, work, engage in commerce) there are far too many people who only believe in immigration due to its political expediency for their tribe. You have to admit that there are just as many people against immigration due to their perception of it’s political ramifications on the right as well?

    3. The wall assuredly have an effectiveness between 0-100%

      As much as I’m for open borders, I don’t really have a problem with a border wall beyond the fact that it’s a waste of money.

      Given the gross lack of clarity and terrible rhetoric put forth shouldn’t a clarification of *both* conditions be put forth? Like, if we had unarmed (privately self-armed?) agents standing at the border handing out pamphlets that said, “The Constitution and Amendments 1-10 are 100% enforced and completely sacrosanct on the other side of this imaginary line we’ve drawn, don’t fuck with them. If you don’t like that please refrain from crossing this line. Seriously, don’t come in, we’ll lock you in a cage and/or ship you back to your country of origin. Otherwise, please present this coupon for free citizenship.” Would that be considered open borders? I mean, it would be close to zero percent effective at preventing any/all assaults on The Constitution and the Amendments, but we’d let pretty much everyone in.

      Would you pay $200 per person to switch to such a system?

      1. You’re conflating crossing a line to live and work somewhere with citizenship.

        1. You’re conflating crossing a line to live and work somewhere with citizenship.

          Are you being serious? Me? By myself? Just now? The two haven’t been literally and specifically conflated since the invention of sovereignty?

          $200 per person would be great. It doesn’t mean squat if I have to spend it on more guns to defend myself and even less if we open the borders to a bunch of people who would rather explicitly and “legally” take the guns I already have *and* the $200 anyway. If the wall is between absurdly unrealistic rhetoric and political theater, open borders certainly is as well, if not more so.

    1. Okay, some guy who bid for a contract he didn’t get is a criminal. That totally bears on the decision to build the wall. If you are retarded maybe.

  12. The border is what’s known as an attractive nuisance. It attracts illegal immigrants from shithole countries like a loose dollar attracts a Clinton. The key is to make the US such an unattractive place that nobody wants to come here any more. The Left is doing their part to make this place an unattractive shithole, what are you doing?

    1. The Democrats in California have been practicing this strategy for 50 years now. And despite turning California into a shithole, the immigrants keep coming.

  13. There is no reason to think endless slabs of concrete would stop illegal immigration or drug smuggling.

    Uh… yes there is. 7 billion precisely-positioned 3 ton slabs of concrete would put an end to illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and pretty much all other human activity on Earth and 7 billion is nowhere near ‘endless’.

  14. If performance art is good enough for airports, it is good enough for borders.

    1. To a large degree, it is performance art and that is one of the reasons why the open borders advocates hate it so much. Building a wall, no matter how effective it would be in stopping people, is the US affirming that the border is there and that it can and will enforce it. That is an enormous symbolic message. The open borders people don’t believe in borders or that the government has any authority to enforce their border laws. If your goal is to undermine the entire concept of a border, the symbolic effect of building a wall is very damaging to your cause. This, along with the fear that it would work, is why they hate the wall so much.

      1. Building a wall, no matter how effective it would be in stopping people, is the US affirming that the border is there and that it can and will enforce it. That is an enormous symbolic message.

        So you want to spend billions of dollars on a stupid wall, just to tell a fucking symbolic message?

        You can’t really be this stupid, John.

        And moreover it’s not even truthful, since absolutely nobody is advocating to build a wall on the northern border. If you want to send a fucking message about how sacrosanct the US”s borders are, shouldn’t you be demanding that the US build a stupid wall along the FAR more open US-Canadian border?

        1. And moreover it’s not even truthful, since absolutely nobody is advocating to build a wall on the northern border. If you want to send a fucking message about how sacrosanct the US”s borders are, shouldn’t you be demanding that the US build a stupid wall along the FAR more open US-Canadian border?

          You say this like the open borders people would welcome Russians fucking with our elections on Twitter *or* at the ballot box.

        2. So you want to spend billions of dollars on a stupid wall, just to tell a fucking symbolic message?

          Sounds like a better deal than High Speed Rail to me.

          shouldn’t you be demanding that the US build a stupid wall along the FAR more open US-Canadian border?

          Not a lot of illegal migrants are coming from Canada.

  15. Speaking of performance art, how about eight years of a ‘black’ president whose grandparents were 75% Caucasian?

  16. A border wall or fence doesn’t have to stop 100% of border crossers to be effective. Israel implemented an effective border fence that has diminished its suicide bomber infiltration to almost zero. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…..ectiveness

    It is difficult to smuggle human beings compared to drugs, guns or contraband. They require food, water, air to breathe, have to relieve themselves periodically, can’t be kept in hidden compartments for days on end, weigh 130 lbs or more and take up a lot of space.

    There are many ways in which illegals get taxpayer support. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal) and the average cost of this education is $11,000 per year (2014 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $132,000 to graduate from high school. This $132,000 of course becomes unavailable to educate the children of citizens and legal immigrants.

    So a $15 billion wall will pay for itself if it deters about 120,000 illegal aliens of child-bearing age from crossing the border illegally.

    If we can reduce the 500,00 illegal border crossers by 95% to (say) 25,000 per year, then the illegal immigration problem is greatly reduced. At that point, the public will be willing to be more generous with the illegals already in the country, especially if criminal aliens are deported.

    1. Because the Mexican people are suicide bombing the US? This is most stupid comparison I’ve heard yet. It isn’t difficult to smuggle human beings. All they have to do is catch a flight into the country and then “forget” to catch the flight back (or have you forgotten that most of latin america is not on Trump’s banned country list). It’s also much easier than being stuffed into the seat of a coyote’s car. But I like the numbers you pulled out of your ass. Why not spend $15 billion on fixing the system so that illegal immigrants don’t get all the free shit? Seems like it would be a lot easier than building a fucking stupid, massive, expensive, useless wall…but that’s just my opinion.

      1. Why not spend $15 billion on fixing the system so that illegal immigrants don’t get all the free shit?

        Various courts have blocked that: if you manage to get into the country, under US law, you are entitled to huge benefits.

        Seems like it would be a lot easier than building a fucking stupid, massive, expensive, useless wall…but that’s just my opinion.

        The wall is 1/5th the cost for covering twice the length of California’s high speed rail line. Sounds like a good deal to me.

  17. The wall is up there with ‘rasslin matches, faith healers, NASCAR events, rattlesnake-juggling exhibitions, whittling contests, gun bashes, country music festivals, and revival meetings as entertainment for those trying to make it through another miserable day in can’t-keep-up America.

    Carry on, clingers. Maybe a bit more faux libertarianism?

    1. Your inclination to always resort to ad hominem attacks on your opponents instead of laying out a principled case for open borders does more to harm our cause than good.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      1. He’s salty because he’s losing.

      2. FYI Leo, just because there is no physical barrier on a border doesn’t mean it’s an open border. If your gonna encourage people to “lay out a principled case” then you shouldn’t start with an incorrect assumption. Glad to stop by.

  18. I’m pretty sure the wall will never be built and Trump knows (and has always known) it. Someone on this forum that actually wasted their time reading his book, said one of his negotiating strategies is to “make an outrageous demand and then settle for what you really want”. I think Trump knows how stupid the wall idea is but is using it as leverage to get what he really wants, more enforcement of existing immigration laws and maybe some new ones…..but maybe he’s not that smart either.

  19. 031518 un:reason trumps wall is performance art

    The wall article is false : is a Hate America to Destruction government occupying ameri’Kan politi’Kal ‘Klass ‘stupid ‘Kommunist’ advocates lie.

    Walls, properly built are cheap and work. See Isreal – Soviet union – china – Pakistan – India – Hadrian.

  20. I’m guessing the victims of Luis Bracamontes, Garcia Zarate, Alfonso, Alarcon-Nunez, Manuel Orrego-Savala and a host of others raping and murdering citizens after being deported multiple times would have a different perspective.

  21. If the wall doesn’t make sense then any existing barrier makes even less sense. Build the wall.

  22. The cost would be enormous. An internal report by the Department of Homeland Security put the price at $21.6 billion.

    That’s less than 1/5th of California’s high speed rail. And a wall would be much more useful than HSR.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.