Posted on 09/01/2016 2:07:14 PM PDT by Evil Slayer
“I see a series of holding camps....supervised by Sheriff Joe all along the border....where illegals will build the wall pas part of their sentence for being illegals.”
This is what I’ve been saying all along.
What's wrong with doing both? Don't think "either/or"; think "yes/and"
Israel built a very effective border barrier for 2 million dollars per kilometer, or about 3.2 million dollars per mile.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/fence.html
The southern US border is about 2,000 miles.
We pissed away a trillion dollars on Obola’s “shovel ready” infrastructure projects, and the only thing that happened was the money disappeared.
Spending 6.4 billion dollars (and Trump can probably beat that) on a border wall would be the best 6.4 billion dollars we ever spent.
Not saying it wouldn’t be money well spent. Just wonder if we have 6 billion in seized assets.
According to the DEA and their dog and pony photo ops there is more than enough! ;-P
How many of them are able to build pre-stressed concrete slabs, drive earthmovers, operate trenchers, cement trucks?
At least it would be a start!
That was my take as well when I read "To fund construction of a new U.S. border wall," as if it was a given.
While I agree with each of you, we really haven’t established a net new source of revenue to build the wall.
We shouldn't even have to. If we could eliminate 10% of the corruption in our government, we could build a wall 100 feet high and plate it with gold.
My guess too is the cost will far outstrip the money confiscated.
My guess is you are correct. If Trump is President, the money/material crossing the border illegally will be significantly reduced.
P.S. Congress already authorized funds to build the wall years ago. Where’s the wall, and where’s the rest of the money ? Since the construction was not finished, that money should be there and it could be used to get going again. (I know. Wishful thinking that any of that money is still sitting in some account)
We are already supposed to be building a wall for a lot of the border, it is law and there was money.
On the other hand, we aren’t going to build a solid wall on our border.
First, because building a 30-foot wall up to the beachhead makes no sense, people near the beach will just walk to the beach and swim around it. You could build it into the ocean, but it will be horribly expensive and won’t really stop anybody.
Second, because you can’t build a wall in the middle of the river. And you can’t build the wall on the Mexican side of the river, because that is mexican territory. And you don’t want to build the wall on our side of the river, because you will cut off our own access to a vital resource.
Where there isn’t a river involved, a wall would be a great thing — although more important is guards. Any wall can be breached, what makes the wall work is security watching it. Then the wall just needs to slow people down enough that security can get there and arrest them if they try to breach the wall.
Which means in a lot of places like the river, we don’t need a wall at all, just border patrols often enough that noody can send a boat across the river quicker than a security detail will come by and see them.
I understand the logistics - I just thought the comment by those against any impediment was a throw-in-the-towel event. "We lost that one, let's nitpick the details."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.