Trump, Walls, and Border Security

[carpedm9587]

There doesn't seem to be a thread specifically focused on this discussion, so I thought I'd start this. Here is my problem with Trump's "wall" and my reason for supporting the position currently being taken by the Democrats (no wall).

The issue we should be discussing is "border security." That is the issue the Democrats have made it clear they are willing to discuss and compromise on. But Trump just keeps coming back over and over again to his simplistic theme: wall. What the wall is has been all over the map. How it is being paid for is all over the map. But the fact is that Trump made this a theme of his campaign - and now is stuck with a base that is (in large part) insisting he follow through.

But the wall is nothing more than an optic. It's visual. Big strong walls. Who could argue with the implied "safety." But I do not believe that, at any time, the Democrats (or Congress in general) should simply give the president a blank check to build his campaign promise. They disagree with Trump on how border security should be done.

If Trump were a good leader, he would be coming to the table with some data. Building 700-900 miles of more border has never been justified. If Trump were to put together a business plan (which I have come to believe the man has never actually put together) for border security that outlined the approach. It would include elements like:

1) Here are the areas where a fence exists - here is the before and after of illegal immigration and the impact of the fence on required patrolling.
2) Here are the areas on the border where we are seeing the highest incidence of illegal immigration, suggesting fencing would be beneficial.
3) Here are the supplementary things we need along with the wall to ensure security.

And then make the case. I've seen a handful of these types of information tossed out at one speech or rally or meeting or another - but none of it in any organized fashion.

Meanwhile, Democrats are making a counter-point: there is a significant incidence of families and children approaching the border seeking asylum from harm. They are doing so often after arduous journeys. To reach the border and encounter an unbreachable obstacle puts these people who are truly in need at risk of their lives. The Dems believe these people outnumber the "bad apples" - making the wall a moral issue. Trump conveys repeatedly that most of the people coming to the border are nefarious (rapists, drug dealers, human traffickers, etc.) - so his base doesn't see a moral issue - just a "we have to protect ourselves" issue. The data, frankly, supports the Democratic position: most people arriving at the border are arriving in search of asylum or work. They are not rapists, thieves, and drug dealers.

If there was less blustering and posturing for his base - Trump might actually make headway on getting funding for border security. But as long as all we hear is "wall wall wall," I believe Trump will continue to lose ground with the American people. His base is NOT the majority, by a long shot.

Personally, I hope he continues to make this miscalculation. I know people will hurt in the meantime - but I have said, since the beginning, that the American people will need to hurt before they realize just what they put into the highest office in the land. Perhaps, in 2020, they will think twice before they repull that lever for Trump. It won't take a significant shift for him to lose by more than the "landslide" he claimed to win by in 2016.

[MaxVel]

There doesn't seem to be a thread specifically focused on this discussion, so I thought I'd start this. Here is my problem with Trump's "wall" and my reason for supporting the position currently being taken by the Democrats (no wall).

The issue we should be discussing is "border security." That is the issue the Democrats have made it clear they are willing to discuss and compromise on. But Trump just keeps coming back over and over again to his simplistic theme: wall. What the wall is has been all over the map. How it is being paid for is all over the map. But the fact is that Trump made this a theme of his campaign - and now is stuck with a base that is (in large part) insisting he follow through.

But the wall is nothing more than an optic. It's visual. Big strong walls. Who could argue with the implied "safety." But I do not believe that, at any time, the Democrats (or Congress in general) should simply give the president a blank check to build his campaign promise. They disagree with Trump on how border security should be done.

I don't think it's just that, I think there's disagreement over whether the USA should have borders at all, or should let pretty much anyone who wants to come in.

If Trump were a good leader, he would be coming to the table with some data. Building 700-900 miles of more border has never been justified. If Trump were to put together a business plan (which I have come to believe the man has never actually put together) for border security that outlined the approach. It would include elements like:

1) Here are the areas where a fence exists - here is the before and after of illegal immigration and the impact of the fence on required patrolling.
2) Here are the areas on the border where we are seeing the highest incidence of illegal immigration, suggesting fencing would be beneficial.
3) Here are the supplementary things we need along with the wall to ensure security.

And then make the case. I've seen a handful of these types of information tossed out at one speech or rally or meeting or another - but none of it in any organized fashion.

Trump works on rhetoric, not dialectic. That's what made him President in the first place. A wall is a strong visual symbol that conveys security and safety etc. Most people aren't going to be swayed by a bunch of data, they make decisions based on emotion and optics. Trump gets that.

Meanwhile, Democrats are making a counter-point: there is a significant incidence of families and children approaching the border seeking asylum from harm. They are doing so often after arduous journeys. To reach the border and encounter an unbreachable obstacle puts these people who are truly in need at risk of their lives. The Dems believe these people outnumber the "bad apples" - making the wall a moral issue. Trump conveys repeatedly that most of the people coming to the border are nefarious (rapists, drug dealers, human traffickers, etc.) - so his base doesn't see a moral issue - just a "we have to protect ourselves" issue. The data, frankly, supports the Democratic position: most people arriving at the border are arriving in search of asylum or work. They are not rapists, thieves, and drug dealers.

Sources?

If there was less blustering and posturing for his base - Trump might actually make headway on getting funding for border security. But as long as all we hear is "wall wall wall," I believe Trump will continue to lose ground with the American people. His base is NOT the majority, by a long shot.

Personally, I hope he continues to make this miscalculation. I know people will hurt in the meantime - but I have said, since the beginning, that the American people will need to hurt before they realize just what they put into the highest office in the land. Perhaps, in 2020, they will think twice before they repull that lever for Trump. It won't take a significant shift for him to lose by more than the "landslide" he claimed to win by in 2016.

If he builds the wall, I think he has an excellent shot at re-election. If he doesn't, I think his base (not a majority, but certainly not insignificant) will look for someone who will do what they want. That might not be pretty.

[firstfloor]

If Republicans wanted a wall they would deal with the Dems to give them something in return. It’s not happening. Trump is alone.

[rogue06]

If Republicans wanted a wall they would deal with the Dems to give them something in return. It’s not happening. Trump is alone.

You mean like DACA? That has been floated and apparently rebuffed.

[Mountain Man]

Ask Israel if a physical barrier is an effective means of border security.

[Cow Poke]

How many "Gee, I hate Trump" threads can there be?

[firstfloor]

How many "Gee, I hate Trump" threads can there be?

Never enough. He’s got me thinking about wheels and walls though. Is the age or durability of a technology a guide to how effective it is against pesky neighbours?

[Sparko]

I just think it is ironic that one of the states full of liberals who don't want a wall, California, already HAS a wall.

[Bill the Cat]

There doesn't seem to be a thread specifically focused on this discussion, so I thought I'd start this. Here is my problem with Trump's "wall" and my reason for supporting the position currently being taken by the Democrats (no wall).

I'll offer a counter point being taken by Border Patrol agents (a wall, technology, and additional manpower).

The issue we should be discussing is "border security."

The problem with that is that most people have no clue what that really means. How about starting with a one or two line sentence on what you think border security consists of?

That is the issue the Democrats have made it clear they are willing to discuss and compromise on. But Trump just keeps coming back over and over again to his simplistic theme: wall. What the wall is has been all over the map. How it is being paid for is all over the map. But the fact is that Trump made this a theme of his campaign - and now is stuck with a base that is (in large part) insisting he follow through.

We've been clamoring for an actual effective physical barrier for quite some time. Trump is just the first candidate/elected official that seems genuinely sincere in his desire to get it done.

But the wall is nothing more than an optic.

That's a blatant lie. It's a physical deterrent. And where they are adequately built, staffed, and monitored, they are HIGHLY effective.

It's visual. Big strong walls. Who could argue with the implied "safety." But I do not believe that, at any time, the Democrats (or Congress in general) should simply give the president a blank check to build his campaign promise.

No one is asking for a blank check. What is being asked for is a real gesture that will make a difference. 1.3 B isn't anywhere near enough.

They disagree with Trump on how border security should be done.

Of course they do. They want the future votes that things like DACA offer.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/us/officials-still-seek-ways-to-assess-border-security.html

The Obama administration officials said on Thursday that they had resisted producing a single measure to assess the border because the president did not want any hurdles placed on the pathway to eventual citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.

© Copyright Original Source

If Trump were a good leader, he would be coming to the table with some data.

That's the problem. It's impossible to forecast how many lawsuits will be filed, how much extra money will be needed to fix some of the old fencing, etc. 5 B is a reasonable estimate based on past construction costs and current high-value targets. The data has been brought to the table. The Dems just don't care.

Building 700-900 miles of more border has never been justified.

Nor has it ever been pitched as a budget option.

If Trump were to put together a business plan (which I have come to believe the man has never actually put together) for border security that outlined the approach. It would include elements like:

1) Here are the areas where a fence exists - here is the before and after of illegal immigration and the impact of the fence on required patrolling.
2) Here are the areas on the border where we are seeing the highest incidence of illegal immigration, suggesting fencing would be beneficial.
3) Here are the supplementary things we need along with the wall to ensure security.

And then make the case. I've seen a handful of these types of information tossed out at one speech or rally or meeting or another - but none of it in any organized fashion.

Those have been made since the early 2000s. There have been detailed RFPs for building materials, specific technologies (like the failed IFTs and SEIDARM system), etc. But it's not up to the President to construct the business plan for itemized spending. It's DHS's responsibility in their budget request.

Meanwhile, Democrats are making a counter-point: there is a significant incidence of families and children approaching the border seeking asylum from harm.

And they are welcome to apply at ports of entry like all other asylum seekers. Most don't want to wait their turn, so they cross illegally and then complain when they are charged with crossing illegally. In the U.S., before you can be granted asylum, the government wants to hear a story from you — a story about "a well-founded fear of persecution." That persecution has to be based on your race, religion or political opinion, or on some "particular social group" you belong to — and it has to have been targeted specifically against you. Central American immigrants have had a tougher time for years getting asylum based on claims that they are fleeing criminal gang violence because it's harder to prove that a threat is targeted or that the government is doing nothing to stop it.

They are doing so often after arduous journeys. To reach the border and encounter an unbreachable obstacle puts these people who are truly in need at risk of their lives. The Dems believe these people outnumber the "bad apples"

Based on nothing but conjecture.

- making the wall a moral issue.

It is a moral issue, but not the one you claim. Completely closing the border to asylum requests would be a negative, but trying to stop illegal crossings is morally the correct thing to do.

Trump conveys repeatedly that most of the people coming to the border are nefarious (rapists, drug dealers, human traffickers, etc.) - so his base doesn't see a moral issue - just a "we have to protect ourselves" issue. The data, frankly, supports the Democratic position: most people arriving at the border are arriving in search of asylum or work. They are not rapists, thieves, and drug dealers.

For FY17, there were 415,517 illegals apprehended or considered inadmissible (meaning they had no passport or travel documents), and only 13% claimed credible fear asylum. In FY18, there were 521,090 apprehended and only 18% claimed credible fear. See here for numbers. That leaves over 80% who were not seeking asylum in the last 2 years. Those are the criminals. Whether they are only seeking work is inconsequential. They are here illegally and under no foreign threat. They are earning American money and shipping it back to their home countries in record amounts - amounts that could seriously help our economy.

If there was less blustering and posturing for his base - Trump might actually make headway on getting funding for border security. But as long as all we hear is "wall wall wall," I believe Trump will continue to lose ground with the American people. His base is NOT the majority, by a long shot.

That something is a majority does not make it correct. Most are blatantly ignorant of what border security actually means. It's not a popularity contest. It's a legal issue.

Personally, I hope he continues to make this miscalculation. I know people will hurt in the meantime - but I have said, since the beginning, that the American people will need to hurt before they realize just what they put into the highest office in the land. Perhaps, in 2020, they will think twice before they repull that lever for Trump. It won't take a significant shift for him to lose by more than the "landslide" he claimed to win by in 2016.

Personally, I hope he sticks to his word and gets it done, as he has with other issues. If he caves, he will be guaranteed to lose in the next primary.

[Mountain Man]

A lot of Democrat solutions would increase surveillance but would not actually increase security. The whole idea of a physical barrier is that we want to keep illegals out, not simply have better ways of watching them come in.

[Cow Poke]

A lot of Democrat solutions would increase surveillance but would not actually increase security. The whole idea of a physical barrier that we want to keep illegals out, not simply have better ways of watching them come in.

And "watching them come in" would be all that would be accomplished with surveillance, unless there were thousands of additional BP added along the border.

[Sparko]

[mikewhitney]

Various states and cities in Mexico are on the travel advisory lists. This occurs largely to organized crime requiring protection money. People are being murdered in connection with these criminal organizations.

https://travel.state.gov/content/tra...-advisory.html

I was watching a youtube video showing Veracruz hotels being near vacant.

Here's problems with tainted alcohol:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...inue/737527002

This last article notes that the US officials wouldn't help ... and mentions that TripAdvisor deleted negative accounts of trips to Mexico.



Do we want more organized crime in the US?

(There seem to be safe places in Mexico. The bigger problem is likely human trafficking, drug smuggling and terrorists.)

[carpedm9587]

I don't think it's just that, I think there's disagreement over whether the USA should have borders at all, or should let pretty much anyone who wants to come in.

Correct. Statistically, about 36% of Democrats polled say they want "open borders." That leaves 64% who do not. There are also voices on the right calling for "open borders," but they are much more far and few between. Labeling an entire party "for open borders" on the basis of the voices of a minority (which many on the right do), is not a reasonable conclusion.

Trump works on rhetoric, not dialectic. That's what made him President in the first place. A wall is a strong visual symbol that conveys security and safety etc. Most people aren't going to be swayed by a bunch of data, they make decisions based on emotion and optics. Trump gets that.

Yes - as I have said multiple times - he is a media savant. But because people are moved by their baser instincts does not mean that a good leader takes advantage of that to herd them like sheep to the worst possible places. That is the path of people like Hitler, Mussolini, and a long list of some very bad people. (queue the "Trump is not Hitler" response....)

Sources?

That is going to take more time than I have this morning - but it is a fair request. I have to go back through my previous posts and notes to pull them together. It is a fair request though - so I will do so.

If he builds the wall, I think he has an excellent shot at re-election. If he doesn't, I think his base (not a majority, but certainly not insignificant) will look for someone who will do what they want. That might not be pretty.

We shall see. Since the majority of Americans DON'T want his "wall," your conclusion is questionable. However, since that is true - if the Dems stand down and let him build it - it is possible THEIR base will turn on THEM. We will have to wait and see. Meanwhile, the impact of this shutdown on approval ratings is pretty evident.

[Cow Poke]

This article makes a good case why a "smart wall" or a "technological wall" is a really DUMB idea....

In border fight, Democrats want 'technological wall' that won't keep anybody out

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California says a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border would be "immoral." Instead, she favors something she calls a "technological wall." Another top House Democrat, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, calls it a "smart wall."

Instead of building an actual physical barrier of steel, concrete, or some other material, Pelosi, Clyburn, and other Democrats advocate employing an array of high-tech devices — drones, infrared sensors, surveillance cameras, and more — to keep track of activity at the border without physical impediments to discourage illegal crossings.

"We cannot protect the border with concrete," Clyburn said recently. "We can protect the border using the technology that is available to us to wall off intrusions."

The problem is, a smart wall would not actually wall off intrusions. Indeed, the main feature of a smart wall — in past debates, it was often referred to as a virtual fence — is that it will not stop anyone from crossing the border into the United States. It can detect illegal crossers and alert authorities to their presence. But it does nothing to keep them from entering the country.

That is especially important given the nature of the migrants crossing the border illegally today. In the past, many were single adult men who could be caught and quickly returned to Mexico. But now, according to the Department of Homeland Security, about two-thirds of the crossers are families and unaccompanied children who, by U.S. law, cannot be quickly returned. Once in the United States, their asylum claims — the vast majority are ultimately judged without merit — take a long time to process. During that time, many simply disappear into the country.

The point, for those illegal immigrants, is not to enter the United States without being detected. It is to enter, be caught, and begin the asylum process that will allow them to stay, one way or the other.

A smart wall is no obstacle to such crossers. On the other hand, a physical barrier would be a big obstacle and, if placed in key areas of the border, would likely reduce illegal crossings significantly. That is precisely the kind of barrier that Pelosi, Clyburn, and other Democrats oppose.

"The virtual fence does not actually block the entry of anyone like a real wall or fence does," said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tighter controls on immigration. "The virtual fence only works if there are enough Border Patrol agents around to arrest the illegal crossers who are detected."

"Most importantly, this technology would not help in the case of caravan migrants pushing through the obsolete and aging barriers we have in many places," Vaughan added. "And it does not help at all if the people who cross are detected only to be released after they state a fear of return, or because they brought a minor with them, or if they are unaccompanied minors led across by smugglers."

Given the nature of the illegal flow across the border, a virtual wall would be even less effective than it might have been in the past....