Posted on 03/29/2017 7:47:33 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Perhaps you aren’t aware, but there were many, many fights about the interstates. Some of them, especially the ones through the major cities, were blocked. Examples include Interstate 95, which was supposed to go through Washington, D.C. but doesn’t; Interstates 66 and 270, which were supposed to go into Washington and link up with Interstate 95, but don’t; and Interstate 70, which was supposed to go through Baltimore and link up with Interstate 95, but doesn’t. Also, Interstate 95 was supposed to go through the downtown part of Baltimore, but was rerouted to the southern part of the city.
And that’s just two cities. There are lots more where that came from.
I’m not at all saying that because some folks protested the interstates, we can’t build the wall. Far from it. But the idea that the interstates were welcomed by one and all is simply not supported by history.
Compared to it’s length, 47,000 miles, I’d say there were few issues in acquiring the land to build this HUGE hi-way system. I would say the 2,000+ miles for the wall is a tiny effort compared to that.
This wall will turn into a military conflict. So be it.
The war on drugs has led to asset forfeiture and forced colonoscopies, the latter to make sure people aren’t muling. End it now; the thuggos can then ask us if we want fries with that.
But build the wall, too!
Say we are taking it in payment for their being a pain and violating our border.
Those policies can be changed. In fact, Obama changed them without going through Congress.
I hope they will be changed.
Meh, we can just “rejob” them to doing routine maintenance and surveillance of the wall :P
Just like “Game of Thrones”, put all the undesirables on the Wall and be rid of them!
We could easily put gates every few miles to let the cattle through, with a manned guard post so nobody can open them up for the illegals.
How about option #4:
build the wall outside the river’s flood plain, with gates every few miles with a manned guardpost to let the cattle ranchers get to and fro when they need access to the river?
It’s a moot point. We’ve controlled the territory for well over a century. Whether it was obtained “legally” or “illegally”, it’s ours now, unless Mexico can muster the force to take it back.
I’m sure the union will find them something to do.
Good thought but that’s not how cattle work. There are ways around this problem. Especially if the rest of the border is walled off. It could be monitored with drones, BP, cameras all kinds of clever things
“Good thought but that’s not how cattle work.”
Well, then Trump can make thousands of new jobs for “cattle whisperers” to make them work that way :)
Read up on the bogus cameras installed during GWB admin. Eye opener that.
How do the rest of Texas’s thousands of cattle ranchers that are no where near a river water their heard ? They use windmills and irrigation that’s how. This cattle thing is a red herring.
Building the wall down the
middle would create some
construction difficulties,
but it is certainly doable.
Locks, bridges, dams,and canals
built to date have had to deal
with the control and flow of water.
It may cost a little more, but
Mexico is going to pay for it.
Then maybe we could get back to fishing the Rio and Amistad without Mexico trying to rob you or shooting at you.
If mexico is paying for it, why did the President ask to appropriate 25 billion dollars for it?
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.