>
It is a border wall for the protection of the sovereign territory of the United States.
>
Bull-squeeze. You want to protect the sovereignty of the U.S. you can do it better, cheaper and Constitutionally:
- Terminate the welfare State. (from schools to hospitals to....pay as service is provided BY those utilizing said service).
- Enforce the EXISTING Law(s): start w/ govt employees (Fed & State) vs. aiding\comfort, abetting, harboring, etc. THEN you can go after the ‘little fish’ (employers, as if it were THEIR job to ensure govt did its properly).
- Data mine. IRS can’t noodle 20+ checks going to the same address, terminate the lot and outsource the work
No carrot & REAL enforcement = dry up the pipeline. Don’t try to sell a (partial) wall as a ‘solution’ when the root causes continue to fail to be resolved.
You seem adamantly opposed to a border wall; and why?
1 Cost: Oh pluh-eese;
we recently allocated 10 billion dollars to Mexico and Central America to stem the tide of illegal invasion. How’s that working’ out for ya?
2 Ineffective: Oh really?
You’ve been to the border to determine this? How is it that your conclusions are directly opposite to those of the Border Patrol which says that a wall is effective.
And how to account for the massive opposition to the border wall by powerful people HELLBENT on stopping an ‘ineffective’ wall?