- TheDaliLama
- 01-11-2019, 07:35 AM
- dilbert firestorm
- 01-11-2019, 07:54 AM
January 11, 2019
The Silly Arguments Against a Border Wall
They’ll go around it? Exactly—that’s the point.
By Dan Crenshaw
Jan. 10, 2019 7:05 p.m. ET
This week saw the culmination of the great wall debate. President Trump made his case—one I generally agree with—and explained what an extra $5.7 billion (approximately 0.1% of the budget) would do for the security of our southern border. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi immediately dismissed it. It is honestly surprising how quickly and thoroughly Democrats adopted the notion that a wall of any kind is such an obviously stupid and immoral idea. Well, is it? Let’s lay out the claims one by one:
• They’ll just climb over it, dig under it or break through it. Just like that huh? I spent 10 years as a Navy SEAL, and people often say, “Dan, you know better than anyone how ineffective a wall is.” Actually, I know how effective walls are, even against skilled SEALs. Planning to scale a 30-foot steel slatted barrier is a daunting challenge. Do you bring an enormous ladder all the way there? How do you get down from the top? Jump? Rappel? This isn’t a Tough Mudder course. A few skilled and well-equipped people may figure it out, but the reality is that most will be deterred.
The same goes for “digging” or “breaking.” Tunneling would require special equipment and hundreds of hours to dig under the barrier, the base of which would penetrate many feet underground. To break through it, you’d need specialized circular saws, torches or explosives. Typical equipment for a special-ops team, but not exactly on the packing list for a migrant. And Border Patrol agents would easily detect such a ruckus.
This isn’t to argue that a wall is completely impenetrable given the right equipment, but to state the obvious: A barrier is far preferable to an open space, where migrants can simply walk across.
• They’ll just go around it. Exactly—that’s the point. A deterrent at the busiest sections of the border would allow more effective allocation of manpower. If a mile of the border is walled off, that’s one less mile the Border Patrol needs to worry about. Agents can still respond to the location if a special-ops caravan shows up with a blowtorch, but otherwise they can focus on open areas where it is simply not viable to build a barrier.
• You can’t put a wall on the Rio Grande. Fair enough—there are places where a physical barrier can’t work, such as private land along the river in Texas. You can’t build a wall everywhere—but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t build one anywhere.
This whole debate is a classic case of one side attacking the other’s worst arguments instead of seriously addressing the actual proposal. Democrats need to stop assuming we are talking about a contiguous 2,000-mile wall. Republicans know that’s not practical. The budget’s small allocation of $5.7 billion that President Trump has requested would build 234 miles of wall. It’s a start.
We know that border security is a multifaceted problem, that security at unwalled segments can be enhanced by drones, sensors and additional patrols, and that the Rio Grande requires a different approach. Let’s start looking for a multifaceted solution instead of automatically dismissing the critical role that physical barriers play.
Do Democrats agree that it’s a problem when hundreds of thousands of people illegally cross our border each year or not? If we all still agree on the sanctity of our country’s borders and rule of law—and I have faith that most of us do—then we should be looking for solutions. My fear is that Democrats have staked out a position so extreme that any common-sense compromise involving a physical barrier will constitute a serious political loss for them. It doesn’t have to. The president’s proposal—a mix of physical barriers, technology and more Border Patrol agents—is one that benefits everyone.
Mr. Crenshaw, a Republican, represents Texas’ Second Congressional District.
The Silly Arguments Against a Border Wall
They’ll go around it? Exactly—that’s the point.
By Dan Crenshaw
Jan. 10, 2019 7:05 p.m. ET
This week saw the culmination of the great wall debate. President Trump made his case—one I generally agree with—and explained what an extra $5.7 billion (approximately 0.1% of the budget) would do for the security of our southern border. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi immediately dismissed it. It is honestly surprising how quickly and thoroughly Democrats adopted the notion that a wall of any kind is such an obviously stupid and immoral idea. Well, is it? Let’s lay out the claims one by one:
• They’ll just climb over it, dig under it or break through it. Just like that huh? I spent 10 years as a Navy SEAL, and people often say, “Dan, you know better than anyone how ineffective a wall is.” Actually, I know how effective walls are, even against skilled SEALs. Planning to scale a 30-foot steel slatted barrier is a daunting challenge. Do you bring an enormous ladder all the way there? How do you get down from the top? Jump? Rappel? This isn’t a Tough Mudder course. A few skilled and well-equipped people may figure it out, but the reality is that most will be deterred.
The same goes for “digging” or “breaking.” Tunneling would require special equipment and hundreds of hours to dig under the barrier, the base of which would penetrate many feet underground. To break through it, you’d need specialized circular saws, torches or explosives. Typical equipment for a special-ops team, but not exactly on the packing list for a migrant. And Border Patrol agents would easily detect such a ruckus.
This isn’t to argue that a wall is completely impenetrable given the right equipment, but to state the obvious: A barrier is far preferable to an open space, where migrants can simply walk across.
• They’ll just go around it. Exactly—that’s the point. A deterrent at the busiest sections of the border would allow more effective allocation of manpower. If a mile of the border is walled off, that’s one less mile the Border Patrol needs to worry about. Agents can still respond to the location if a special-ops caravan shows up with a blowtorch, but otherwise they can focus on open areas where it is simply not viable to build a barrier.
• You can’t put a wall on the Rio Grande. Fair enough—there are places where a physical barrier can’t work, such as private land along the river in Texas. You can’t build a wall everywhere—but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t build one anywhere.
This whole debate is a classic case of one side attacking the other’s worst arguments instead of seriously addressing the actual proposal. Democrats need to stop assuming we are talking about a contiguous 2,000-mile wall. Republicans know that’s not practical. The budget’s small allocation of $5.7 billion that President Trump has requested would build 234 miles of wall. It’s a start.
We know that border security is a multifaceted problem, that security at unwalled segments can be enhanced by drones, sensors and additional patrols, and that the Rio Grande requires a different approach. Let’s start looking for a multifaceted solution instead of automatically dismissing the critical role that physical barriers play.
Do Democrats agree that it’s a problem when hundreds of thousands of people illegally cross our border each year or not? If we all still agree on the sanctity of our country’s borders and rule of law—and I have faith that most of us do—then we should be looking for solutions. My fear is that Democrats have staked out a position so extreme that any common-sense compromise involving a physical barrier will constitute a serious political loss for them. It doesn’t have to. The president’s proposal—a mix of physical barriers, technology and more Border Patrol agents—is one that benefits everyone.
Mr. Crenshaw, a Republican, represents Texas’ Second Congressional District.
- themystic
- 01-11-2019, 07:59 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sil...ll-11547165119 Originally Posted by TheDaliLamaGive it up.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! LMAO!!!!
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...s-border-wall/
- eccielover
- 01-11-2019, 08:18 AM
Give it up.Yeah Stern is priceless sometimes.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! LMAO!!!!
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...s-border-wall/ Originally Posted by themystic
“I would love to see Donald come on last night and go, ‘Fuck this, I’m not going to bullshit you guys. I want $20 billion,” he added
- WTF
- 01-11-2019, 08:21 AM
The silly argument against funding the wall via emergency order...
It unsurps Congress. Gives the Executive Branch too much power and is unconstitutional.
It unsurps Congress. Gives the Executive Branch too much power and is unconstitutional.
- eccielover
- 01-11-2019, 08:28 AM
- themystic
- 01-11-2019, 08:37 AM
- rexdutchman
- 01-11-2019, 08:52 AM
All other POTUS have done some thing (see secure fence act where the people against now signed ) But only because its Dumper they act like kids and old people and all they can say is NO , some border security needs to happen >>...
- themystic
- 01-11-2019, 10:00 AM
All other POTUS have done some thing (see secure fence act where the people against now signed ) But only because its Dumper they act like kids and old people and all they can say is NO , some border security needs to happen >>... Originally Posted by rexdutchmanNancy said NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Lmao!!!!!
" We can do this all day, NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!"
- bamscram
- 01-11-2019, 11:11 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sil...ll-11547165119 Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
Trump was the one saying he would build a wall across the entire border, and Mexico would pay for it.
Time for him to STFU about a wall, and talk border security. Didn't he supposedly write a book on the art of the deal" ?
- LexusLover
- 01-11-2019, 11:16 AM
If the Liberal-Socialists-AntiTrumpers in this country had made as much fuss about "you can keep your doctor" as they have about "building a wall," then Obaminable Care would have never passed.....oh, wait! I'm sorry.
They wanted Obaminable Care to fail!
They wanted Obaminable Care to fail!
- bamscram
- 01-11-2019, 11:19 AM
- LexusLover
- 01-11-2019, 11:24 AM
Silly arguments .... about "border security" ...
This is a fence ...^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a wall ..... ^^^^^^^^
This is a fence ...^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a wall ..... ^^^^^^^^
- TheDaliLama
- 01-11-2019, 11:28 AM
- LexusLover
- 01-11-2019, 11:53 AM
Just call it a "jobs bill" and fund the damn thing. One of the DNC's mouth pieces proclaimed Chucky and Nancy would agree to shelling out the dough so long as Trump called it a "fence"! Call it a "fence" and ... vote for it!
They already have once or twice before ...
(That looks like a fence with a wall on top ... kind a like a wall with a fence on top ....!!!!) VVVVVVVVVV
They already have once or twice before ...
(That looks like a fence with a wall on top ... kind a like a wall with a fence on top ....!!!!) VVVVVVVVVV