What if the border wall isn’t effective?

All we have to do is have our business verify their workers are citizens.

E-verify would greatly help that. And forfeiture and jail time for managers, owners, and supervisors who knowingly break the law would help that.

And triple the forfeiture of the dividends for stockholders would end it immediately.

 

It certainly will in lots of places according the actual experts in the field who deal with it day in and day out AS I CITED.

Your turn.

Who are these experts the Democrats keep claiming otherwise and what studies back them up. I heard Sen. Debbie Dingle repeat the claim that expert after expert claim walls don't work. Money where mouth is time, post them and the studies they did.

 

I agree, 5 billion buys a lot of 308

 

I cited with link. They are border agents union members.

Who you got to back up the "experts claim walls don't work" canard. Give me a link.

 

I didn't claim I had a study I have the people who actual work the border, they don't need a study they deal with it day in and day out up close and person. It's you guys claiming "experts", OK where is their study that proves what they claim?

 

Yes because your's and the Democrats claims is based on "the experts" you know the experts who do studies and then make their pronouncements. So produce these studies, produce these experts. Give me the links. I rely on the experts IN THE FIELD, do you know what that even means? They deal with it first hand on a day to day basis. What studies are you claiming prove they are liars?

 

No, you are correct. The wall will be only a symbol of U.S. sovereignty and not otherwise meaningful since eventually Trump will be out of office and the first thing that leftists will do when they return to power is throw open the borders again while pretending that they are not doing just exactly that.

 

I'm neither for nor against the wall...I prefer other ways to reduce illegal entry but that's not what your thread is about.

My question to you is, would a giant wall make illegal entry harder, or easier, for those trying to enter?

 

Stopping illegal immigration is a big and important job. We will have to do what it takes. A wall is an obvious first step.

If you all didn't think a wall effective, you wouldn't complain about it so much. It's very existence will discourage people from setting out.

 

You demanded a peer review study. Not a survey.

Produce the study or that is hypothetical

 

Well, let's build the wall and watch it work. What if it stops 50% of the crossings. It will be money well spent.

 

Cut off their goodies. They won't bother

 

Yes by your experts, how did your experts come to their conclusions, through their studies, lets see them. Or were they all just talking out their arse's?

 

Exactly. Let's see the peer reviewed study that supports your claim

This is the standard you set

 

I just found a VERY interesting take on the issues surrounding the wall and the Rio Grande

https://mexiconewsdaily.com/opinion/alternative-vision-to-trumps-border-wall/

 

Except most of the businesses doing it aren't among the fortune five hundred and more than a few of them are Latino owned.

 

In other words you have no experts, no studies just politicians spewing out of their pie holes. And we all know exactly what that's worth. That and another seven bucks and you can get a cup of near coffee at star bucks

 

So you dont have a study like you requested?

 

Me>> Or were they all just talking out their arse's?

So they were exactly talking out their arses. You can't name these Democrat experts nor the studies that support their claims. Gotcha.

I gave you the experts in the field, the border agents what to you have to refute them? I didn't claim to be relying on immigration experts studies, academics who study things. I gave you reality. Oh well when you find out who these Democrat experts are let me know.

 

I didn't request one I've just watched you dodging producing one for two pages.

 

But you asked for a peer reviewed study. Did you not?

Why cant I ask for that as well?

Please provide it

 

It seems lots of people are forgetting that messing with federal property is a federal crime with teeth, unlike our purposefully weak and loophole-ridden immigration laws.

The Wall's best "effect" is as a legal deterrent, not physical, and it should serve that purpose very well.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1666-destruction-government-property-18-usc-1361

"As amended on September 13, 1994, if the damage exceeds $100, the defendant is subject to a fine of up to $250,000, ten years imprisonment, or both." That is what is known in technical legal language as "harsh as F" and why the Democrats, normally happy to roll any amount into pork projects, resist a relatively small expenditure so vehemently.

Contrary to popular belief, few people purposefully go to federal prison for "three hots and a cot" and I'm pretty sure coyotes, "activists," illegal aliens generally will be less likely to risk it.

 

I vote for choice number two, only there are no experts it's just Schumer blowing smoke

 

Wow, that is some great business plan. Maybe I should try this when I apply for my next grant. I'll just tell the funding agency "what if my drug cures 50% of cancers, it would be money well spent". Do you think the agency would give me funding? Not in a million years.

Yet, here you expect us to shell out 10s of billions of dollars to find out that the wall may or may not stop 50% of crossings? That's some fiscally responsible conservatism for you.

 

WTF?? OF COURSE THEY WOULD FUND THAT! This forum, always good for a laugh. And coincidentally exposing the self-interested source of Complex (in this case the "grantee" and "edu" parts of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex) "Leftists'" politics.

A .500 batting average will make you millions in Pro Baseball, same for a 50% FG in Basketball (but not a FT%). Hell in soccer it would make you king of the world.