Kids In Cages...

[Mountain Man]

So far, nothing I've seen makes me think a wall is the answer.

The thing about walls, they can't not be effective to some extent simply by their nature.

[carpedm9587]

The thing about walls, they can't not be effective to some extent simply by their nature.

Except in the circumstance I cited. So far, no one has addressed those issues.

And, as with all things, the are the unintended consequences...

[seer]

Except in the circumstance I cited. So far, no one has addressed those issues.

Where?

And, as with all things, the are the unintended consequences...

...the are the????

[carpedm9587]

Where?

See my earlier posts - some of which you responded to with "why don't you believe the experts."

If someone wants to discuss the issues and facts (as we know them), I am more than happy to. But if all people want to do is suggest we should "trust the experts," then I don't have much else to say. I don't find that a very compelling argument.

...the are the????

My bad. I should have edited more closely: "there are the unintended consequences."

[Mountain Man]

Except in the circumstance I cited. So far, no one has addressed those issues.

And, as with all things, the are the unintended consequences...

Your argument seems to be based on the idea that if one can not describe a perfect solution then no solution should be attempted.

[carpedm9587]

Your argument seems to be based on the idea that if one can not describe a perfect solution then no solution should be attempted.

No - that was nowhere in my argument - or anywhere in any of my posts. Indeed, I explicitly said the opposite, and I have posted my immigration-related suggestions before.

[Sparko]

No - that was nowhere in my argument - or anywhere in any of my posts. Indeed, I explicitly said the opposite, and I have posted my immigration-related suggestions before.

It would help if you ever bothered to summarize your arguments or link back to the posts you are referring to instead of merely asserting "See my earlier posts" and then getting upset if someone gets your "argument" wrong.

[carpedm9587]

It would help if you ever bothered to summarize your arguments or link back to the posts you are referring to instead of merely asserting "See my earlier posts" and then getting upset if someone gets your "argument" wrong.

I'm not upset.

I'm merely noting that "trust the experts" is not a very good argument.

[Teallaura]

If fencing cannot work, why do we spend so much on it worldwide?

[carpedm9587]

If fencing cannot work, why do we spend so much on it worldwide?

So, first, I didn't say "fencing cannot work." If a discussion is to be had, it might be best if the discussion is actually related to what I have said...just a thought.

What I did say was that Trump's wall is not going to solve the immigration problem, and cannot even be reasonably used for much of the southern border (i.e., along the length of the Rio Grande), for the reasons I cited, which are: a) there is no place build it that does not produce serious negative consequences (isolation from the river and/or white-elephant maintenance costs, emminent domain issues, etc.), b) it doesn't stop/address the asylum issue, and c) there are swaths of the border where wall cannot be built because it is reservation land. Where it can be deployed usefully, it should be, but as best I can tell many (most?) of those areas have already been built up and simply need repair/maintenance (i.e., in/near major cities and easy points of crossing). There are other tools that could/should be used to address the immigration issue. I've listed several of them in previous posts:

1) Address our historical involvement in the countries where much of this exodus is occurring
2) Create programs to enhance quality of living in those same countries
3) Bolster immigration resources to process asylum claims quickly (1-2 weeks max)
4) Supplement the wall as necessary and focus heavily on detection technology
5) Adjust immigration quotas to align with employment needs/opportunities
6) Create a simple process for seasonal workers (i.e., the Delta "Clear" model)
7) Implement an arduous path to citizenship for existing undocumented immigrants
8) Implement a path to citizenship for DACA people
9) Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for all future illegal immigrants of any kind
10) Adopt a zero tolerance policy for any current immigrant that runs afoul of the law for anything more than a misdemeanor.

[lilpixieofterror]

If fencing cannot work, why do we spend so much on it worldwide?

Just drive around town and try finding a house or business that doesn’t use a fence somewhere on their property.

[carpedm9587]

Just drive around town and try finding a house or business that doesn’t use a fence somewhere on their property.

As has been noted multiple times, comparing fencing around a small property to a border fence along one piece of a country border is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

[Teallaura]

So, first, I didn't say "fencing cannot work." If a discussion is to be had, it might be best if the discussion is actually related to what I have said...just a thought.

What I did say was that Trump's wall is not going to solve the immigration problem, and cannot even be reasonably used for much of the southern border (i.e., along the length of the Rio Grande), for the reasons I cited, which are: a) there is no place build it that does not produce serious negative consequences (isolation from the river and/or white-elephant maintenance costs, emminent domain issues, etc.), b) it doesn't stop/address the asylum issue, and c) there are swaths of the border where call cannot be built because it is reservation land. Where it can be deployed usefully, it should be, but as best I can tell many (most?) of those areas have already been built up and need repair (i.e., in/near major cities and easy points of crossing). There are other tools that could/should be used to address the immigration issue. I've listed several of them in previous posts:

1) Address our historical involvement in the countries where much of this exodus is occurring
2) Create programs to enhance quality of living in those same countries
3) Bolster immigration resources to process asylum claims quickly (1-2 weeks max)
4) Supplement the wall as necessary and focus heavily on detection technology
5) Adjust immigration quotas to align with employment needs/opportunities
6) Create a simple process for seasonal workers (i.e., the Delta "Clear" model)
7) Implement an arduous path to citizenship for existing undocumented immigrants
8) Implement a path to citizenship for DACA people
9) Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for all future illegal immigrants of any kind
10) Adopt a zero tolerance policy for any current immigrant that runs afoul of the law for anything more than a misdemeanor.

Not everything is about you.

How, exactly, does that differ from Reagan's failed amnesty?

[Adrift]

Interesting. I actually laid out all of my reasons for why I believe as I do. So far, all that has come back in response is "why don't you believe the experts?" My philosophy professors would have called that an "appeal to authority," which is a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicalfallacies.info/re...-to-authority/

Appeal to Authority

Explanation

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

Example

(1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
Therefore:
(2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.

This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument.

[carpedm9587]

Not everything is about you.

Fair enough. I jumped to the conclusion you were responding to my exchange. My bad.

How, exactly, does that differ from Reagan's failed amnesty?

Follow-through. If there is none - it will be the same.