MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Donald Trump Admits Border Wall Won't Stop Drugs From Mexico

But he plans to design it "with transparency" so you'll see the huge bags of drugs being tossed over the wall before they smack you in the head.

ReasonReasonPresident Donald Trump appears to have inadvertently admitted that the wall he wants to build on the border with Mexico will not prevent the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

Until now, Trump has maintained that the wall is necessary to stop the flow of drugs (as well as illegal immigration). "We need the wall," he said at one of the presidential debates last year. "We stop the drugs. We shore up the border." It was a claim that he repeated often during campaign rallies and a talking point that he's stuck with since taking office.

So it's a bit stunning to hear the president declare—as he did on Thursday aboard Air Force One, according to a transcript from The New York Timesthat huge bags of drugs will simply be tossed over the wall after it is built:

Q: You were joking about solar, right?

THE PRESIDENT: No, not joking, no. There is a chance that we can do a solar wall. We have major companies looking at that. Look, there's no better place for solar than the Mexico border—the southern border. And there is a very good chance we can do a solar wall, which would actually look good. But there is a very good chance we could do a solar wall.

One of the things with the wall is you need transparency. You have to be able to see through it. In other words, if you can't see through that wall—so it could be a steel wall with openings, but you have to have openings because you have to see what's on the other side of the wall.

And I'll give you an example. As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don't see them—they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It's over. As crazy as that sounds, you need transparency through that wall. But we have some incredible designs. [Emphasis mine.]

Trump has said some crazy stuff over the past two years, but I'm not sure there's anything objectively more ridiculous than that sentence. Regardless of what you think about the president, the idea of a border wall, or the effectiveness of the War on Drugs, can we all come together for a moment—just a moment—and luxuriate in the gloriously stapsticky mental image of a 60-pound bag of drugs sailing over a massive barricade on the southern border and cold-clocking an innocent bystander?

And that, friends, is why we need a transparent wall. For safety. Because the wall isn't going to stop the flow of drugs, so at least let's not get anyone unnecessarily hurt.

Oh, but wait, it gets better. The entire conversation was supposed to be off the record, until Trump, according to the Times, changed the rules in the middle of the exchange and put the entire thing—including his comments about the importance of transparency in building the border wall—on the record for the world to see.

And for that, Mr. President, we thank you.

Here at Reason, we've been covering the problems with Trump's border wall for months, highlighting how drug smugglers already have the means to beat Trump's wall, how legalizing marijuana would do more to disrupt the flow of drugs from Mexico than any wall ever could, and how much taxpayers will have to shell out for the costly, ineffective project. In short: The Wall Won't Work. Even with holes in it.

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.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    So it's a bit stunning

    You misspelled "unsurprising as shit."

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It's stunning in its mundaneness.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    He also misspelled "Mexican trebuchets."

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Always a major concern in a game of Civilization.

  • Rhywun||

    If he wants a wall without all the grief maybe he should just continue building it on the down-low like Obama did.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Stealth wall. SUPER transparent. So clear, like you wouldn't believe. Dumb un-American birds keep running into it. Sad!

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Mother, should I run for president?
    Mother, should I trust the government?

  • Bob K||

    No, its a waste of time and they will probably shoot you for your trouble.

  • Drave Robber||

    Dunno, but they'll certainly try to break your balls.

  • Dillinger||

    Mother will they put me in the firing line?

  • FreeToFear||

    Can't wait to see what our resident trumpalos have to say about this one

  • Citizen X - #6||

    As long as Mexicans can't tunnel under the transparent wall in order to pick fruit for $2 an hour, they'll be fine.

  • paranoid android||

    You won't. Whenever he does or says something too crazy or cruel to defend, it's just deleted from their memories. It never happened. "Oh, you're still talking about that but not a peep about [Hillary Clinton/the Deep State/Lena Dunham/whatever]? Hypocrite!"

    It's quite remarkable to behold.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Remarkably mundane.

  • ||

    You won't. Whenever he does or says something too crazy or cruel to defend, it's just deleted from their memories. It never happened.

    I don't know who all falls under the trumpalo umbrella. I did, however, extract from the internet memory hole (below) a story about a pneumatic drug cannon that launches 60 lb. bags that the Federales seized and how it represented a shortcoming to Trumps proposed wall.

    This should not be construed as a commentary on Trumps craziness and can readily be construed as a commentary on his originality.

  • Calidissident||

    That story is pretty crazy, although I don't know if that's what he was talking about, as I wouldn't use the word "throwing" to describe a cannon shot. I also don't see how transparency would really matter there in most instances.

  • paranoid android||

    Honestly, I wonder if what happened is that an adviser told him, "You know, transparency on this issue is important", and he just became fixated on the word "transparency" until it turned into this fever dream of needing a see-through wall to stop people from being crushed by bags of drugs.

  • Calidissident||

    It honestly wouldn't surprise me.

  • Calidissident||

    The more I read and think about it the crazier he gets. He says it might be a steel wall with openings so you can see what's on the other side. Couldn't the drug traffickers then just pass the drugs through the openings? WTF he clearly doesn't think these things through.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The openings will be very, very small. Duh.

  • Calidissident||

    But just big enough to see the drugs coming from the other side, right?

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Medieval arrow slits in the shape of vaginas.

  • Calidissident||

    Reading the story again, I see it mentions trebuchets, which makes more sense. In any case, I think the odds of someone being saved by the transparent wall allowing them to notice drug traffickers randomly shooting/throwing bags of drugs across the border is virtually zero.

  • junyo||

    "Reading the story again, I see it mentions trebuchets, which makes more sense."

    What kind of fucked up trajectory would the bad hombres be using to treb-hump ganja over the border that would smack you in the head close enough to any meaningfully sized wall where you couldn't just look up? And if you're getting smacked a couple hundred feet back from the wall, then openings are also worthless.

    And then there's just the shear astronomical odds of someone traveling near the border, catching a random drug payload in the face, even if the 105th Narcartillery battalion is barrage firing into south Texas.

    This is no context in which this is not batshit insane. This is some shit you daydream about, to yourself in the shower, if you had Taco Bell the night before and nothing particularly interesting going on that day, and is burned off by the first hit of caffeine. Not something you say aloud to another human being.

  • ||

    Eric, haven't you learned? Trump keeps winning. Don't be surprised by the end of the day someone DOES get clocked by such a bag sans le mur.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I mean, I guess that's one way to get government transparency?

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    A transparent solar wall - is that like a force field? I would think that it would be effective against catapult-launched drug packages. I don't think Trump is thinking huge enough.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    There's your answer. If the wall doesn't stop the flying package, just call force field and you're covered.

  • ||

    How high is the wall? The guy who can toss a 60 lb. bag of drugs over isn't going to be deterred by aluminum chain link.

  • brokencycle||

    I hate when I'm walking along a wall, and a 60 pound bag of drugs falls on my head.

  • Dillinger||

    I love when I'm walking along a wall, and a 60 pound bag of drugs falls on my head.

  • Aloysious||

    can we all come together for a moment—just a moment—and luxuriate in the gloriously stapsticky mental image of a 60-pound bag of drugs sailing over a massive barricade on the southern border and cold-clocking an innocent bystander?

    Trebuchets. Portable trebuchets. I'm telling you we need immediate legislation regulating illegal Mexican trebuchets.

  • Bob K||

    Will the legislation be "common sense" because I can only get behind "common sense" trebuchet control?

  • Jerryskids||

    It won't do any good to regulate Mexican trebuchets, everybody knows you can't compete with the government-subsidized Chinese trebuchets.

  • ||

    Holy shit! Now that you say this, this pops back out of the memory hole.

  • ||

    And for the Fox averse, the same story was picked up by Popular Mechanics so, definitively not fake news!

  • Spartacus||

    Meh. Now they can just fly stuff over in drones.

  • Jerryskids||

    As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don't see them—they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff?

  • Jerryskids||

    I will repeat that for the hard of hearing:

    As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don't see them—they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff?

  • Jerryskids||

    And to think that people laughed at Hank Johnson when he worried about Guam tipping over if we kept putting more military installations on the island.

  • Dillinger||

    i still do...knuckleheads everywhere.

  • Crusty Juggler - Double Great||

    Yeah, what about CNN, though? Did you see what they did? lol.

  • paranoid android||

    It's a horrifying sign of the times that I read this and think, "Well, that's probably not the most insane thing the President has said this week"

  • Citizen X - #6||

    horrifying

    You misspelled "hilarious as shit."

  • Dillinger||

    word.

  • Zeb||

    It's important to one's sanity to remember that, despite all of the raging idiocy that has come with it (from all sides), Trump being elected is the funniest thing that has ever happened in real life.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    This is objectively true.

  • Eric Bana||

    Ayn Rand would agree.

  • Calidissident||

    It is pretty surreal to think about.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>funniest thing that has ever happened in real life

    ludicrously tragic...i love every minute so far

  • BYODB||

    I must admit that I enjoy watching all these people who think the President should be some moral high ground, perfect individual lose their shit when it turns out the President is just some guy, you know?

    Donald Trump is the Zaphod Beeblebrox of POTUS.

  • Zeb||

    So, does that mean that it was all orchestrated by a secret cartel of psychiatrists, and not Russians after all? Seems plausible given all the insanity induced by Trump's election.

  • BYODB||

    Indeed. Zaphod was the best President in the history of the galaxy, so effective was his deflection of attention away from the true levers of power!

  • Robert||

    He still might be both the best & the funniest POTUS of my life...& LBJ's hard to beat for funny.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yelling at Congressmen over the phone while shitting is pretty hard to beat, it's true.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I've put together some pretty good business deals whilst sitting on the pot. No one has a clue as long as I'm careful to stay off speakerphone.

  • Fred G. Sanford||

    Nothing beats Bushisms.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The "fence" in the Republican Party Platform in the summer of 2016 might not be such a bad thing if it served a single purpose. Now that The Don has trumped it up into a full-fledged WALL, if it suffices to protect Mexico and the rest of Latin America against exportation of U.S. prohibition laws, political destabilization and asset-forfeiture raids, it would be well worth it to Latin America. In fact, a treaty to that effect might suffice to persuade them to pay for the thing after all. Of course we'd have to junk CIA, FATF, AML, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN, EAG and find productive jobs or cellmates for all those thugs and bureaucrats. But sacrifices have to be made, right?

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: Hank Phillips,

    if it suffices to protect Mexico and the rest of Latin America against exportation of U.S. prohibition laws[...]


    It won't. The US State Department and the DOJ will never ever relent in their war against people's choices, a.k.a. the "War On Drugs".

  • blameline||

    How's this for an idea: Get a presidential initiative to stop drug abuse - maybe, a War on Drugs! Then, get Donald and Melania on TV and have Melania give a little speech which ends with "Just say No!"

    What? What do you mean that's already been done?

  • Eric Bana||

    One of these days, people will stop using drugs. I can feel it.

  • Tionico||

    that scenario is just as other-worldly and hilarious as Trump's meme about thirty kilo sacks of hootch flying over some wall with solar panels on it and gob-smacking some poor schmuck on the other side.... both are Roadrunner Cartoon funny.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Trump has said some crazy stuff over the past two years, but I'm not sure there's anything objectively more ridiculous than that sentence.


    I actually found the sentence where he doubles down on a "solar wall" to be even more ridiculous. It's nothing more than a a clumsy attempt at hiding the fact that the president has no fucking idea how to put up that "wall" or pay for it. There's little difference between justifying the wall as a giant solar power collector and justifying it as a "job creator." Only Trumpistas would be convinced by such hogwash.

  • Robert||

    You've heard of solar roadways, haven't you? So why not solar walls?

  • BYODB||

    Well, for one, solar roadways are an insane proposition. Ever try driving on wet glass? Not to mention, where do we get all those rare materials?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Deciding who can't and can't be within our borders is an enumerated power of Congress, as well it should be. Inflicting an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like inflicting an unpopular war on them. Our Constitution gives Congress the power to set those polices (while respecting the First and Fourteenth Amendments) for that reason. It is one thing to argue that our legal immigration policy should be expansive to allow as many people as possible, but it's quite another to effectively argue that democracy has no place in setting immigration policy.

    Let's argue about the cost and effectiveness of a wall. Let's argue for making our legal immigration policy as expansive as reason will allow. But let's call the equivalent of arguing that the American people should have no voice in immigration policy through their elected representatives in congress what is is--complete and utter horseshit. We can safely call the suggestion that immigration law as set by congress, signed by the president, and written in harmony with the Constitution the same thing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "We can safely call the suggestion that [we should ignore] immigration law as set by congress, signed by the president, and written in harmony with the Constitution the same thing."

    Fixed!

  • Crusty Juggler - Double Great||

    Let's argue about the cost and effectiveness of a wall.

    A solar-powered steel wall with openings seems pretty damn efficient and effective to me.

  • paranoid android||

    It is one thing to argue that our legal immigration policy should be expansive to allow as many people as possible, but it's quite another to effectively argue that democracy has no place in setting immigration policy.

    In arguments against propositions that nobody actually advocates, Ken has an undefeated record.

  • Crusty Juggler - Double Great||

    Let's argue about Ken's head movies.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I guess I shouldn't assume that everyone can put two and two together--but arguing that there's no way to keep out illegal aliens so our government shouldn't even try is effectively like arguing . . .

    Do I really need to say the rest? I think I already did!

  • Crusty Juggler - Double Great||

    here's no way to keep out illegal aliens so our government shouldn't even try

    By building a giant, transparent wall?

  • BYODB||

    So we're saying that no one around here has made the argument that the American government doesn't have the power to restrict immigration? How have you managed to miss all of the completely open borders arguments around here?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Some people can't follow arguments that haven't been presented to them in a specific way in the past.

    If they don't already understand it, then it must be wrong--or so their thinking goes. Those people usually end up either working retail, for a large company, or for the government.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i5OrcxwFUA

    And they hate seeing people think for themselves. It makes them feel inferior.

  • BYODB||

    I'll say right up front that I don't always agree with you Ken, but you're at least coherent so I appreciate your commentary more times than not.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think anyone says they don't have the power granted by the constitution to restrict immigration, do they?

  • Crusty Juggler - Double Great||

    It's those "some people," Zeb - they're everywhere.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, actually I've seen that argument made around here numerous times. Usually backed up some version of freedom of association meaning that the government can't or shouldn't have any immigration law at all.

    Just because no one made that argument today doesn't mean that it hasn't been a semi-regular argument that appears here from time to time.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'd only add that the obvious inference from suggesting that the government shouldn't try to enforce immigration law (with a wall, what have you) is that immigration law shouldn't be enforced.

    If someone's telling me that immigration law that's been passed by a duly elected congress shouldn't be enforced, what are you telling me about the proper place of democracy?

    To find legitimacy for the drug war, you have to bend over backwards, twist the commerce clause, and tell me that people don't have a right to drink alcohol if the government says so.

    To find legitimacy for immigration law, you don't have to bend over backwards and interpret something strangely. You just look under Article I, Section 8, and it's listed there along with the Congress' enumerated power to tax and declare war.

    What people should be allowed to say or what religion they should be allowed to believe isn't a proper role for congress, but whether we should declare war or who we should let live in our country, these are proper questions for democracy to answer--so long as the government is respecting the First and Fourteenth Amendments, etc. in formulating and implementing immigration policy.

  • Zeb||

    That's a different argument, I think. The government undeniably has the constitutional power to control or regulate immigration. Whether and how they should use that power, and what the pure, principled, individual rights based "right answer" is is a whole other discussion.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I'll argue against the democracy aspect. We're libertarians, after all.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    +2 wolves and a lamb arguing about lunch

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, any physical barrier is going to fail at the border. On sheer basic mechanics, a wall will fail at every stated purpose that people have brought up.

    All the ways around a wall have been pretty well known for a couple of thousand years now.

    The incentives that bring them here would need to dry up for an effective deterrence.

    If American business wants more low-wage low-skilled labor imported, they should make that case at the Federal level.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is a bit like arguing against having police--since people are just going to keep robbing banks, perpetrating burglaries, and vandalizing cars anyway.

    We argue that the drug war should end, in part, because the drug war is prohibiting activity that should be perfectly legal. That argument isn't always transferable. While illegal immigrants who just want to come here for work should be allowed to cross, there are certain people we legitimately want to keep out--terrorist, murderous cartel members, et. al. Meanwhile, the justification for keeping those threats out isn't based on twisted, bullshit interpretation of the commerce clause. Deciding who can and can't reside within our borders is an enumerated power of congress.

    If we were to argue that there's no way the police will ever be able to stop armed robbers and burglars, that might not make people want to ease up on police enforcement. That makes them want to double down twice as hard--on the drug war, maybe gun control, more police surveillance, and other things we don't like.

    Just like telling people that it's impossible to stop illegal immigrants coming across our borders doesn't make them want to increase the levels of legal immigration. It makes them want to shut down legal immigration entirely.

  • BYODB||

    Just because something is 'a bit like' something else doesn't mean the same arguments actually apply.

    How many ICE agents would be needed to actually cover around 1900-2000 miles of desert, and how much would it cost to build a wall that can be subverted by sticks tied together and a dense blanket? What other area of law enforcement has such a wide-range of specific territory that is otherwise completely valueless, but also has a tremendous amount of 'law breakers'?

    It's ludicrous. That's what it is. It would make more sense to pull all American troops home and station them at the southern border in perpetuity, and probably cheaper. Note that I'm not saying this is a good idea, it's just an illustration.

    What 'the wall' folks are suggesting is hiring a perpetual domestic army that will be stationed at the southern border to...what? Shoot people who try to cross? Arrest them, hold them for a while, and ship them back home for a second try? I honestly don't know, but I can say that it's more of the same of what's already been tried and has already failed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "How many ICE agents would be needed to actually cover around 1900-2000 miles of desert, and how much would it cost to build a wall that can be subverted by sticks tied together and a dense blanket?"

    How is this different from arguing against using police to cut down on armed robberies and vandalism?

    Saying we shouldn't build a wall because the benefits don't justify the cost is perfectly appropriate.

    Telling me that building a wall is absurd because it won't stop illegal immigration entirely is exactly like telling me that we shouldn't bother policing against violent crime because that won't stop violent crime entirely either.

    The question isn't whether the wall will stop immigration entirely.

    The question is twofold:

    1) Will a wall discourage illegal immigration in sufficient numbers to justify the cost?

    2) If Americans' support for legally letting non-violent, non-threatening Mexican citizens come across our border at will depends on excluding violent threats at the border and keeping them out, then what's the purpose of convincing average Americans that violent threats can't be kept out by a wall or anything else?

    You don't seem to understand the obvious implications of your own argument.

  • mopoos||

    They've worked great since time immemorial. Why do you think you think you sleep in a box of two 2*4s and gypsum you ninny.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They seem to work in Israel and northern Ireland, anyway.

    The question really isn't about whether physical barriers can work to keep people out.

    The question is about the cost and the benefits.

    And I maintain that we'll never get the American people to accept letting people cross the border without a visa until the American people can be reasonably assured that when we exclude people from crossing the border because they're a convicted felon, cartel member, violent threat, etc., we can keep them out after we reject them.

    In that way, arguing to Americans that we can't keep people out is effectively an argument against open borders.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Re: Ken Shultz,

    it's quite another to effectively argue that democracy has no place in setting immigration policy.


    But it can be effectively argued. First of all because the political system is not democratic but republican, based on elected representatives, and because majority rule is antithetical to the right to freely assemble and to property rights, both of which come to play when it comes to immigration.

    Immigration is nothing more than people traveling from one spot outside an imaginary border to another spot inside that imaginary border, most of the time because they're invited in by a willing Market (that would be: us). Those borders are placed there by conquerors in most cases. Exactly why would you think that the State has any valid justification to impose itself aggressively on to this peaceful and voluntary relationship between immigrant and Market is something that you will have to explain to me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Inflicting an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like inflicting an unpopular war on them. Our Constitution gives Congress the power to set those polices (while respecting the First and Fourteenth Amendments) for that reason."

    I appreciate the argument that democracy can easily overstep its proper boundaries, but democracy does have a proper place--and immigration is one of them.

    I disagree with our present immigration policy--I think legal immigration should be far more expansive. However, that's a bit like disagreeing with a war.

    I opposed the Iraq War. There's a big difference, however, between opposing a particular war and saying that congress shouldn't have any power to declare wars or vote against them either.

    The purpose of libertarianism is not to seize the reigns of power and force libertarianism on everyone over the objections of congress. Our mission is to persuade our fellow Americans to support a more expansive immigration policy. That's the way lasting change happens.

    See the gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and the end of segregation for examples. Preach the libertarian gospel, free people's minds, and their representatives and the courts will follow.

  • BYODB||


    Immigration is nothing more than people traveling from one spot outside an imaginary border to another spot inside that imaginary border

    It's not an imaginary border, it's the demarcation between two different nations set of laws. For there to be no borders, the world would need to agree on one set of law.

    I had no idea you were a globalist. Or maybe you just mean we should go to war with Mexico and install our own set of law over their nation? Or, perhaps, you mean there should be no governments and no laws. In that case, who will volunteer to go shoot the Mexican government so these poor people can be free?

    But no, I'm sure you've really thought this one through.

  • Zeb||

    I had no idea you were a globalist

    More of an anarchist, I think.

  • BYODB||

    So, option 3 then. ^_-

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Agreed. Control of our sovereign borders is key to the continued success and survival of our nation.

  • Crusty Juggler - Double Great||

    There is a chance that we can do a solar wall. We have major companies looking at that. Look, there's no better place for solar than the Mexico border—the southern border. And there is a very good chance we can do a solar wall, which would actually look good. But there is a very good chance we could do a solar wall.

    One of the things with the wall is you need transparency. You have to be able to see through it. In other words, if you can't see through that wall—so it could be a steel wall with openings, but you have to have openings because you have to see what's on the other side of the wall.

    And I'll give you an example. As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don't see them—they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It's over. As crazy as that sounds, you need transparency through that wall. But we have some incredible designs.

    "Best W*LL EVAH!"

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Open borders" to me means having a treaty with Mexico that lets their citizens come back and forth across the border at will so long as they can show ID which (to our satisfaction) verifies 1) that they aren't convicted felons or wanted criminals, 2) have been vaccinated against certain diseases, etc.--and having such a system would necessarily depend on having the means to keep out people whom were rejected at the border for those reasons--wall or no wall. The American people simply won't accept a legal open border policy so long as it also means we can't keep out legitimate threats.

    Protecting our rights from such threats is a legitimately libertarian function of government. Please be aware that when we libertarians tell our fellow Americans that it's impossible for the government to keep out such threats, it does not make them want to support open borders. It makes them want to shut down the border and immigration entirely.

    Tim Cavanaugh was right ten years ago.

    http://tinyurl.com/ycodm8ks

    ----LA Times

    . . . about this and a lot of things. That's the way you get people to support open borders--by addressing their concerns rather than dismissing them.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Trump has said some crazy stuff over the past two years


    No!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Let's fix that:

    Trump has said some crazy stuff over the past thirty-two years

  • Ken Shultz||

    For all you lazy fucks who won't click a link, this is what real open borders look like:

    "A policy of borders without visas would in fact be more restrictive and formal than the system that applied through much of American history because it would depend on proper identification -- either a passport or some other recognized papers -- to cross from one country into the other.

    There are two objections to an open border policy: national security and economics. One is specious; the other is based on ignorance of the way free markets work and free people behave.

    First, national security. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, this line of thinking goes, we cannot afford any laxity at our borders. This case breaks down on logic, facts and history. We already have laxity at both our northern and southern borders. If you believe undocumented immigrants are a security threat, things could not be more dangerous than they are now, because the near-impossibility of entering the United States legally drives thousands of people to cross the border in secret.

    Free movement would be more secure than our current system, removing Mexican workers' incentive to swim across the Rio Grande and allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to track everybody who's entering the country legitimately, with 100% assurance that anybody who crosses the border in secret is up to no good."

    ----Tim Cavanaugh

    http://tinyurl.com/ycodm8ks

    Cavanugh, Cavanaugh! Wherefore art thou, Cavanaugh?

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, what happened to him? I always liked his stuff.

  • Crusty Juggler - Double Great||

    Why do some people say cucumbers taste better pickled?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I'm not sure this euphemism tracks.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Cukeaschmuck gay boy.

  • Demagogisimus||

    Good thing I did not drink my latte when I read it.

  • flpbr||

    Just before that interview he was watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail

  • Anarchist||

    I don't want the wall to stop drugs. I want it to stop Mexicans

  • Tionico||

    He's right, that wall will NOT stop drugs. There are tunnels, airplanes, ballons, cannon, submarines, and trusted gummit agents making ways for that stuff. His imagining big bags of marihootchie sailing over the wall are hikairous. Almost remings me of Reefer Madness, that comedy flick from the sixties that the gummit floated to scare high school kids away from the stuff. Most us saw right through the farce and fairytales, even if we didn't ever touch the stuff.

  • Amogin||

    Well since Mexico won't pay for the wall and our illustrious bully in chief has repeated ly insulted them, it is entirely possible that things will come flying over the wall- not drugs- who would be stupid enought or strong enough to throw a60 lbs of drugs over a wall and hope the right person catches it. Bricks however and other missiles Intended to cause harm may be not only possible but probable. Net immigration is already down- the wall won't stop drug trafficing so why do we need this expensive monstrosity?

  • gah87||

    The Legislative Branch's role is to pass laws.
    The Judicial Branch's role is to interpret the laws.
    The Executive Branch's role is to make us laugh and cry.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Make the wall with wind turbines on top. When the cartels roll out their trebuches simply reverse the flow of current and blow the blow back over the wall. But you must do it "huge" or "big league".

  • ||

    071517 Reason is wrong again, as usual... with their walls don't work song and dance article.

    Hummm, now you guys tell us we should believe that the Iron curtain did not work for 70 years ??? well, that wall, that you say didn't work, really fooled the Soviets and East Germans.

    ...what planet were you girls living on in that time ???

    Hummm, and, you walls don't work guys now say the Israeli wall does not work ??? I'm pretty sure that the Israelis and the Palestinian muslim terrorists are convinced the Jewish walls work… see also Golan Heights walls.

    now you are implying that the wall [DMZ] across Korea does not work ??? but I am relatively confident that both North and South Korea, + the 35,000 US and UN troops, + the Chinese Troops all think the DMZ wall works

    ...like i said, what planet are you people living on ??? maybe some stellar alien world where walls don't work ???

    It seems you are just in denial about how walls work; so, why don't you make a tour of the walls that you say do not work and dance back and forth across those walls that you say do not work so we get the whole operational "walls do not work" perspective for you ?

  • ||

    O ! wait… you are the same girls who refuse to do the Paris accords to your economies and send your money to America for the next 13 years just to show us crying deniers how it works… this is not politically : scientifically : enviro-communisticly a dispute…

    whatever environmental reduction the world thinks will be achieved by using the Paris accords to hamstring and wreck the American economy; If, every Paris advocate state did those economy wrecking procedures to their countries' economies for 13 years the net pollution offset [whatever they think it is/maybe] will be + 100 times as effective as just doing it to wreck the US… as well, all the Paris accord lovers money will give America the bucks to build the America wall, repair/retrofit the America infrastructure, send Man to Mars, pay for Congressional Level universal health care, for every America Citizen, for free 20 years…

    Suck it up ! just do it ! show us how its done ! you believe it ! you live it !

  • obatgonore88||

    Thanks for giving me good information. Can be an inspiration in my work activities

    Obat Keluar nanah dari penis

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online