Dems may try and use Endangered Species Act to stop the wall
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
As of January 2009, 580 miles of pedestrian/vehicle wall existed along the 1,954 mile border so you mean more wall will get built and we'll start a trade war with Mexico in hopes that Mexico will pay for some portion of it. Higher priced goods from Mexico just means that the U.S. taxpayer pays for much of the wall that may or may not slow the rate of illegal immigration. Of course our taxpayers will pay for all of the wall prior to any hoped for reimbursement. I'd guess that more aggressive treatment of illegals would go way further to discourage them from crossing the border than any wall would. Illegals are like drug dealers, they'll just find other ways to enter...over, under or around it or via the ocean.
Really? Tightening border security had been proposed many times during Obama's reign and it was shot down. Ya'll cant change history quick enough.
First of all you have no idea how Trump will get Mexico to pay for the wall, it may be a tariff, it may be a fee on funds transferred to Mexico, I don't know nor do you. As for a trade war, Mexico won't start a war they can't win. And you are assuming that if there is a tariff, the U.S. consumers will pay for it. You may be right on some goods, not on others. There is something called competition. If the price for Mexicans goods is higher than the Chinese, Taiwanese, Filipino, Brazilian, Peruvian, etc., then Americans will buy non Mexican products.
A wall will stop some, not all. But it will put a big dent in drug trafficking though. In addition to the wall, Trump is funding more border patrol agents, more surveillance including drones, more electronic fencing, etc. All the technology at our disposal backed up by human intelligence and armed agents. The flow will not stop completely, but will slow significantly.
What? You really are a special kind of stupid. Many options available. And Mexico will pay one way or the other.
The Wall. Some questions:
1. what is the purpose of The Wall? There needs to be a consensus of purpose for such a large undertaking.
2. if we hope for The Wall to protect us, from what do we want protected along that border? we need to identify the specific dangers.
3. will The Wall exclude 100% of drugs or illegal immigrants or terrorists? by what objective means do we measure the effectiveness of The Wall?
4. if not 100%, what percentage will need to be excluded for The Wall to be considered a worthwhile endeavor/expense, and how will we measure that?
5. Since those constructing The Wall will want paid as they build, and Mexico says they're not paying, where will the cash come from to pay those construction workers and engineers until Mexico drinks the Kool-Aid and writes us a check?
6. much of the border land is privately owned. will the United States go to court and take private land by eminent domain of those U.S. citizens who don't want a big, hulking wall across their property, for whatever reason? How many years will all of that litigation take? What about the guy who likes to sit on his deck with a cold beer and look out over his land he struggled for years to buy, and enjoy the view to the river and beyond? Take his land for The Wall?
7. what becomes of the privately-owned land that ends up between The Wall and the river because of the topography of the land?
8. what will be the cost of maintenance of The Wall, and who will be charged with inspecting it and maintaining it in good repair?
9. do we install surface-to-air missile batteries on The Wall to bring down those who seek to fly above The Wall?
10. is there not a better way to use $15,000,000,000 to protect our country?
It's a Brave New World, for sure.
i am not a registered Republican or Democrat, and tend to vote roughly 50/50 in elections, especially local ones.
1. what is the purpose of The Wall? There needs to be a consensus of purpose for such a large undertaking.
2. if we hope for The Wall to protect us, from what do we want protected along that border? we need to identify the specific dangers.
3. will The Wall exclude 100% of drugs or illegal immigrants or terrorists? by what objective means do we measure the effectiveness of The Wall?
4. if not 100%, what percentage will need to be excluded for The Wall to be considered a worthwhile endeavor/expense, and how will we measure that?
5. Since those constructing The Wall will want paid as they build, and Mexico says they're not paying, where will the cash come from to pay those construction workers and engineers until Mexico drinks the Kool-Aid and writes us a check?
6. much of the border land is privately owned. will the United States go to court and take private land by eminent domain of those U.S. citizens who don't want a big, hulking wall across their property, for whatever reason? How many years will all of that litigation take? What about the guy who likes to sit on his deck with a cold beer and look out over his land he struggled for years to buy, and enjoy the view to the river and beyond? Take his land for The Wall?
7. what becomes of the privately-owned land that ends up between The Wall and the river because of the topography of the land?
8. what will be the cost of maintenance of The Wall, and who will be charged with inspecting it and maintaining it in good repair?
9. do we install surface-to-air missile batteries on The Wall to bring down those who seek to fly above The Wall?
10. is there not a better way to use $15,000,000,000 to protect our country?
It's a Brave New World, for sure.
i am not a registered Republican or Democrat, and tend to vote roughly 50/50 in elections, especially local ones.
really? terrorists crossing the Mexican border? what planet do you live on?
TerraFirma countryroads89. Not the idealistic world of pink unicorns and androgynous fairies you visit while walking in your sleep
Here read and learn:
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ists-groups-besides-isis-crossing-us-mexico-/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/30/pakistanis-terrorist-connections-nabbed-us-border/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...litant-shaykh-mahmood-omar-khabir-among-them/
Canadians help us enforce the Law. I've crossed that border several times coming back from Canada into Buffalo and had my car and all contents searched. Mexico doesn't even try to stop anyone from crossing illegally, they help them in many cases.
NEPA, ESA, NHPA, CAA, CWA are not "obscure".
Go back to whining about abortions.![[winking]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/wink.r191677.gif "Winking [winking]")
You'll be the one whining once this barbarism gets overturned, and if the environment is under such "imminent" threat from a Wall being built, why weren't at least the existing laws preventing illegal border crossings being enforced? No threat there, just potential Democrat voters.
President Donald Trump will be able to order the construction of a wall on the Mexico border Wednesday with the stroke of a pen, because of a 2006 law passed with the help of Democrats including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.
The 2006 law authorized the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, as well as additional lights, cameras and sensors to enhance security. Although former President George W. Bush signed the measure into law, the Democrat-controlled Congress that took over a few months later ensured it would never be completed by means of an amendment to a 2008 spending bill.
The amendment removed an explicit requirement the wall be made of double-layer fencing, and gave the Department of Homeland Security authority to put in place less effective barriers, such as simple vehicle barriers that do not keep pedestrians out. As a result, Democrats were able to avoid a politically unpopular vote against the wall, and then turn around and quietly gut its construction. But Trump and Republicans in the new Congress now plan to use that law to ensure a proper wall is constructed.
Since the law was never actually repealed, the federal government is still authorized to build a substantial wall on the southern border. Congress doesn’t have to pass a new law to begin construction, and can instead package the funds necessary into a massive spending bill Democrats would have a politically hard time opposing. Trump may get a head start on the process by diverting other funds congressional leaders have indicated are available for the project, ensuring a snafu over the spending bill doesn’t hinder prompt construction of the wall.
The 2006 law authorized the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, as well as additional lights, cameras and sensors to enhance security. Although former President George W. Bush signed the measure into law, the Democrat-controlled Congress that took over a few months later ensured it would never be completed by means of an amendment to a 2008 spending bill.
The amendment removed an explicit requirement the wall be made of double-layer fencing, and gave the Department of Homeland Security authority to put in place less effective barriers, such as simple vehicle barriers that do not keep pedestrians out. As a result, Democrats were able to avoid a politically unpopular vote against the wall, and then turn around and quietly gut its construction. But Trump and Republicans in the new Congress now plan to use that law to ensure a proper wall is constructed.
Since the law was never actually repealed, the federal government is still authorized to build a substantial wall on the southern border. Congress doesn’t have to pass a new law to begin construction, and can instead package the funds necessary into a massive spending bill Democrats would have a politically hard time opposing. Trump may get a head start on the process by diverting other funds congressional leaders have indicated are available for the project, ensuring a snafu over the spending bill doesn’t hinder prompt construction of the wall.
Translation:
Another minority group I can exploit by playing to their ethnic ties and say whatever they want to hear so they will vote for me.
Not buying the above statement. As for the rest:
1. what is the purpose of The Wall? There needs to be a consensus of purpose for such a large undertaking.
A. To protect our border so that we know and approve who enters our country.
2. if we hope for The Wall to protect us, from what do we want protected along that border? we need to identify the specific dangers.
A. Illegal aliens, drugs, terrorists, rapists (coyotes), migrants, weapons, etc.
3. will The Wall exclude 100% of drugs or illegal immigrants or terrorists? by what objective means do we measure the effectiveness of The Wall?
A. No wall is 100% secure. But if walls don't work, why does the White House have one? Why does Paul Ryan's home in Wisconsin have one? It will have its biggest impact on drug traffic, imo. Hard to drive a truck though a wall. They may tunnel, thus the additional need for electronic surveillance, border agents, drones, etc. Walls work.
4. if not 100%, what percentage will need to be excluded for The Wall to be considered a worthwhile endeavor/expense, and how will we measure that?
A. How much are human lives worth? How much is it worth to keep drugs out of the country? How much is it worth to protect against potential terror attack? Americans want border security. We want to know who enters our country. It is the LAW.
5. Since those constructing The Wall will want paid as they build, and Mexico says they're not paying, where will the cash come from to pay those construction workers and engineers until Mexico drinks the Kool-Aid and writes us a check?
A. Mexico will reimburse us for the costs, one way or another. Moot point.
6. much of the border land is privately owned. will the United States go to court and take private land by eminent domain of those U.S. citizens who don't want a big, hulking wall across their property, for whatever reason? How many years will all of that litigation take? What about the guy who likes to sit on his deck with a cold beer and look out over his land he struggled for years to buy, and enjoy the view to the river and beyond? Take his land for The Wall?
A. I live in Texas and most Texans support the wall. Government uses whatever it needs to use to secure the land for public use. You liberals don't seem to mind when wind mills scour the country side, kill birds and are an eyesight to everyone.
7. what becomes of the privately-owned land that ends up between The Wall and the river because of the topography of the land?
A. Again, most Texas support the wall. It is a security issue for many. I think they prefer security over a little bit of land.
8. what will be the cost of maintenance of The Wall, and who will be charged with inspecting it and maintaining it in good repair?
See above. We pay lots and lots of money to protect Americans. This is one of those costs.
9. do we install surface-to-air missile batteries on The Wall to bring down those who seek to fly above The Wall?
A. Stupid question. Shows you to be a lib which you claimed you weren't.
10. is there not a better way to use $15,000,000,000 to protect our country?
A. Mexico pays for it. Moot point.
All we know is that we'll spend more on border security and taxpayers will pay for it.
This is true, because it is one of the 1st and legitimate functions of Government. National security.
I think what we also "know" moe is that unlike now, the Nation's immigration Laws will be enforced, strictly. The Wall is simply a tool that will help us do that more efficiently, & effectively...once again because those Laws are not being and have not been enforced consistently or effectively until Trump's election. It may be the biggest reason he was elected, so if you Leftists are mad over this you should blame President Obama who refused to consistently and aggressively enforce our immigration laws to stop the invasion across our border of people entering this country illegally.
What is a sanctuary city?
50,000 overdosing deaths annually = 1 Vietnam/year. I realize not all sources of heroin come thru Mexico; that's why we have tight customs at Ports/Airports and points of entry like Tijuana/San Ysidro.
They're not against border security doofus. They're against a blatant idiotic waste of taxpayer money for a fence like we already have. Get your head out of your ass and quit calling it a wall.
Ryan never used the word “wall” during his brief press conference with reporters, instead describing the barrier as a fulfillment of the Secure Fence Act.
Nearly 700 miles of the southern border is already fenced off, thanks to the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which garnered bipartisan support. (Ryan pointed out that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted for it.) One analysis suggests building an entirely new wall would cost $40 billion, far more than the $15 billion McConnell and Ryan are talking about.
In healthcare for illegals, alone. There are so many metrics that show a US loss of tax payer money due to that boeder. You should consider living in "now" time in the real world.
Another day and cuntrytard gets abused again. Notice that zero liberals stepped in to rescue him again today.A billion huh?
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I see a question mark but don't understand what you're asking, if anything. What's a huh? Would a billion be a lot of huh(s)?A billion huh?
It means you really think illegals cost us a billion dollars a year in health care.
You conservatives are dumber than I thought.
There it is. He worked in his famous tard.
I feel sorry for you, I hear life is tough on idiots. Dumb enough to vote for Trump.
The illegals don't enter one by one; they come with children. Do YOU have an official number for per anum illegal healthcare? How about educational costs (all of them: Spanish text books and Spanish speaking teachers for illegal aliens that no comprendo our language, etc., etc?It means you really think illegals cost us a billion dollars a year in health care.
You conservatives are dumber than I thought.
I actually have no issue with the wall. I just don't think the 15-25 billion is money well spent. There is no guarantee it will significantly reduce illegals. We still haven't secured the Canadian border where the 9/11 terrorists entered. I'd rather see a new a I-95 to add resiliency to our east coast transportation system, Investment in high speed trains, overhaul of our air transportation system, and upgrades to our electrical grid. That's my opinion.
Ain't that the damn truth. Caught one drinking and loading up water bottles from my garden hose one night.
I have good friends who retired to Arizona (they are moderate republicans). I've never heard them complain so I guess I'd be fine.
