Tell an Australian what the argument is against building a border wall.

I'm Australian. We effectively now have a very efficient wall surrounding our country to keep out illegals - the water; which is patrolled by our Navy. Yet, we don't have people arguing against it. People aren't calling on the government to knock down the 'sea wall' even though it is stopping a record number of boats and sending them back to where they came from.
They also didn't argue against it when it was just proposed (and we have alot of dumb liberal/left wingers in Australia, as ex-feminist Casey Jay knows only too well when she was here last month promoting 'The Red Pill!' She said she received worse backlash than what she did in the US!)

So my question is, other than cost, what is the argument against building a wall to stop people illegally entering the USA? I mean, obviously the stupid people who believe in entirely open borders will say that a wall will make it harder for people to illegally enter the country. I guess if there are any of you in this forum, you can also tell an Australian what the argument is for an open US border, because that makes zero sense to me!

TIP: "Build bridges not walls" is NOT an argument!

 

in a word "tunnels"

 

Greed. Liberals in this country demand that there always be an underclass of uneducated, unrepresented, desperate population that they can preside over. The infusion produces crime, (fear) which becomes the lever with which liberals take away liberty. It's what they do.

 

Seems to me that equalizing income and wealth levels is a chiefly liberal ideology which runs completely against what you just said...Remember...its the commies who are obsessed with the class struggle in the first place

 

Of course the sea is not your wall, it is actually like a road that can be traveled by boats. Your wall is your coast guard and radar systems that allow you to find those crossing the invisible line of territorial borders. This is far easier than finding individuals crossing open brushy and mostly unpopulated country, which is what we must do now on most of the southern border. Expensive- but also not very efficient.

The arguments against the wall are actually arguments for unregulated illegal entry. It is hard to understand how some people can think this way. At their own home, if somebody crawled in a window and took up residence, or entered without knocking or asking permission, it would be seen as invasion, burglary, a criminal act- but regardless of terms- totally unacceptable. Our nation is the house we all live in, the idea that we have the right to control the entry of non-citizens who comes here and that you must have permission to enter is about as fundamental as common sense gets.

So... there isn't really a valid argument against building the wall, in my opinion.

 

So many contradictions, where to start. The "equalizing income and wealth" seems to ignore the dichotomy of liberalism being driven by those who have the most to begin with, and the assumption that nothing happens to their own wealth, just the rest of the available which they feel, if evenly distributed, will sufficiently satisfy the folks with less compared to them. Liberals have a long memory, and remember what happened on the guillotines in France.

 

The argument against the wall runs pretty far actually. See, you guys down under have natural barriers that pretty much make it impossible for illegals to flood your country; you're surrounded by ocean. We in America do not have that liberty and have two extremely large land borders to our north and south.

The first argument comes with cost and cost effectiveness. By building a wall, we're wasting a lot of money that doesn't actually keep out that many people

Which brings it to the next point; a wall doesn't really keep people out (even though that's what its supposed to do). There's tunnels, as the other guy mentioned. Also, if you look at the stats, the majority of illegals come by plane, into none other than *sigh* California.

We have an abundance of fences with barbed wire and all kinds of barriers in place already, and while its helping, its not like building it higher and stronger is going to impact immigration that much. So we would be wasting a good couple trillion on something that wont really help us out that much.

When people say border wall, they are usually talking about Trump's proposed wall. His plans just won't work, the money doesn't exist, and even if it did, the wall would be something like 4 feet tall. A border wall, in theory, would actually work if we equipped it with enough security. But to put that much money into a wall like that would be a waste of money; the return wouldn't be high enough to warrant such an investment.

 

Funny. Seems a little counter intuitive then for liberals to drive increasing that population then, huh? This must be the same elitism that brought us "clinging to our guns and religion"....

 

You're a tad confused. You said that's why we don't want a wall, not us. See how that works?

 

Well, when you're working under your definition of a liberal, that all makes sense, doesn't it.

"An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns. Democrats have a huge advantage (63 percent) with voters earning less than $15,000 per year. This advantage carries forward for individuals earning up to $50,000 per year, and then turns in the Republicans’ favor — with just 36 percent of individuals earning more than $200,000 per year supporting Democrats.

Interestingly, the median household income in the United States is $49,777 — right near the point where the Democratic advantage disappears and the Republicans take over.

About half of Democrats express satisfaction with their personal financial situation, compared with 61 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Independents. "

- https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/

Revolutionary leftism, just like reactionary right wing ideology, often ends with violence. In the case of France, to make everyone equal, they killed off the rich and the nobility.

I, of course, am not advocating for leftism in any way. I'm just saying, know what you're hating.

 

Not me.

Hmm.... well then.

Bill Gates. D. Jeff Bezos, D. Warren Buffett, D. Mark Zuckerberg, D. Larry Ellison, D. Michael Bloomberg, I. Charles Koch, R. David Koch, R, Larry Page, D. Sergy Grin, D.

Top 10, 7 -2 Ds. I would point out that their personal wealth is close to a trillion dollars combined. As in almost 10% of US GPD.

I suppose it depends on the perspective you take.

 

Yeah you. You said it right here. "Seems a little counter intuitive then for liberals to drive increasing that population then, huh?"

We don't define immigrants this way. "............. an underclass of uneducated, unrepresented, desperate population that they can preside over". You do. We define you that way.

 

Doubling down on your own inability to comprehend the conversation seems a tad puerile. I doubt you would define immigrants that way. It does not, in any way, mean that the observation isn't true. Simply ask California how many billions of dollars they spend to support the class of immigrants that flood their state. My city has added tens of millions of dollars to attempt to remediate the education levels of the school age kids who flood here as well. It's by design.

 

And how much have we spent trying to educate you? Which has clearly failed.

"Donald Trump’s surge is all about less-educated Americans"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-americans-heres-why/?utm_term=.c7dffb03ef77

 

Golly, using a WAPO oped? Laughable. Nice ad hominem though. Thanks for the demonstration of your vast skills.....

 

Can't refute it huh. Let me repeat it, "Donald Trump’s surge is all about less-educated Americans". Or, "In terms of demographics, Trump’s supporters are a bit older, less educated and earn less than the average Republican."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/09/who_are_trumps_supporters.html

Or, "Still, voters without a college education are Trump’s core base of support."

 

What do you mean when you say dumb liberal/ left wingers? In Australia, a liberal is conservative and not left wing?

 

Repeating your version of elitism seems what? Smug? It's a treat. Really.

 

Still can't refute huh?

"Still, voters without a college education are Trump’s core base of support."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/5-myths-about-trump-supporters-220158

So you see, you are what you claim the immigrants are. You are the underrepresented, undereducated, poorly skilled. That's why you turned to Trump.

 

The gratification this seems to supply yourself with seems, well, gratuitous. Do you suppose we should give you a moment of privacy???

 

Still can't refute it can you?

 

And alternative routes such as entering on visas and forgetting to go home

 

Which is already a significant number.

 

It's like the gift that never ends. Seriously, this is just too much.... I mean, think about what you're presenting on the forum. The smug, the entitlement, the pretentiousness of it all. Truly, it's spectacular to witness. I declare, my HBO subscription is in real jeopardy this morning....