4 ms·

So you're upset that this solution doesn't go far enough? Well give it time. Build a wall first to treat the easy 40% of illegal immigration, then take care of

So you're upset that this solution doesn't go far enough? Well give it time. Build a wall first to treat the easy 40% of illegal immigration, then take care of overstays. Deal with border human trafficking, and then also deal with it internally. Considering how much the dems are resisting an initial wall (or how much the right resisted the ACA) it should be obvious by now that you've gotta solve problems incrementally. The government was designed to be its own cock block. It's doing that well atm. So don't expect anything that comes out to be a 100% solution unless it's attempted for many years, incrementally building.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> So you're upset that this solution doesn't go far enough? No, I'm upset that it's, viewed charitably, an expensive ineffective approach to dealing with a small, in many cases easily rerouted portion of any of the problems cited to justify it, with adverse impacts on property owners, communities, wildlife, and the environment along the border far out of proportion to its benefits even if it was free. > Build a wall first to treat the easy 40% of illegal immigration, If I wanted to deal with the easiest bit of illegal immigration, I'd do it for free, simply by retaining the aggregate limits on immigrant visa categories but removing the per-country cap do they qualified immigrants are treated equally irrespective of country of origin. The incremental next step in reducing illegal immigration would actually generate revenue...
- thatoneuser 8y ago
  All you're doing is claiming the wall won't work as well as your solution. There's zero reason to believe what you're saying would be effective. Walls have worked for thousands of years...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > All you're doing is claiming the wall won't work as well as your solution No, I'm claiming it won't work as well, costs more in direct public expenditures (free is hard to beat), and has greater adverse side effects than my method. > There's zero reason to believe what you're saying would be effective. There's zero reason to believe that removing the allocation rule that creates decade+ waits for legal immigration from a neighboring country with lots of people wanting to and legally qualified to immigrate would reduce illegal immigration? No, there's a lot more than zero reason to think that. > Walls have worked for thousands of years... The walls that have ever worked for even vaguely similar use cases weren't simple physical barriers but manned fortresses, usually where the “wall” was topped with an elevated fighting platform and roadway, often with two actual walls with the roadway/platform in between them, and the wall also featured periodic tower forts as components. And even most of them didn't work all that well and were epic resource drains to build, maintain, and man.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> So you're upset that this solution doesn't go far enough? No, I'm upset that it's, viewed charitably, an expensive ineffective approach to dealing with a small, in many cases easily rerouted portion of any of the problems cited to justify it, with adverse impacts on property owners, communities, wildlife, and the environment along the border far out of proportion to its benefits even if it was free. > Build a wall first to treat the easy 40% of illegal immigration, If I wanted to deal with the easiest bit of illegal immigration, I'd do it for free, simply by retaining the aggregate limits on immigrant visa categories but removing the per-country cap do they qualified immigrants are treated equally irrespective of country of origin. The incremental next step in reducing illegal immigration would actually generate revenue...

thatoneuser 8y ago
All you're doing is claiming the wall won't work as well as your solution. There's zero reason to believe what you're saying would be effective. Walls have worked for thousands of years...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > All you're doing is claiming the wall won't work as well as your solution No, I'm claiming it won't work as well, costs more in direct public expenditures (free is hard to beat), and has greater adverse side effects than my method. > There's zero reason to believe what you're saying would be effective. There's zero reason to believe that removing the allocation rule that creates decade+ waits for legal immigration from a neighboring country with lots of people wanting to and legally qualified to immigrate would reduce illegal immigration? No, there's a lot more than zero reason to think that. > Walls have worked for thousands of years... The walls that have ever worked for even vaguely similar use cases weren't simple physical barriers but manned fortresses, usually where the “wall” was topped with an elevated fighting platform and roadway, often with two actual walls with the roadway/platform in between them, and the wall also featured periodic tower forts as components. And even most of them didn't work all that well and were epic resource drains to build, maintain, and man.