You're exactly right. If the wall is going to be a big failure, then give Trump the $5.6 Billion he's asking for and sit back and watch him fail. You guys on the left are so anxious to se him fail, go for it. Your perfect opportunity. He's going to get it done any way you look at it. So, why avoid the obvious? It wasn't immoral or inappropriate three years ago, five years ago, six years ago when you all v**ed for it. the biggest low life hypocrites on the Planet, no v**e because Trump and the country need it.

Was your adopted grandfather the Russian immigrant, Peter Banin? Because he also won his suit agains trumpy and the CRDA...CRDA vs Banin.

"Why waste taxpayer's money building a wall well back from the border which then needs lots of gates for landowner access as Obama did." LOL! The challenge of building a wall right in the middle of the Rio Grande pales next to the challenge of making Mexico pay for it. Which it totally will. Therefore, a wall in the middle of the river is a viable option.

One possibility is a floating fence:


On a body of water, you don’t need a 16-foot fence, but since Mexico will be footing the bill, you may as well do 16. Or you make them pay for 16 and do 12, pocketing the difference.

Of course, river currents may cause a floating fence to, erm, float out of place. Trump has already thought through this. On our side of the floating fence, a human chain of Make America Great Again folks will push the fence back into place by making gentle ripples with their hands.

Since there will be no minimum wage, and no illegal (or legal) immigrants on our side of the fence, these folks will all be descendants of the Mayflower and will be making less than $3 an hour, but getting a bath and a tan and a patriotic portfolio all for free.

It’s a win-win for everybody, and that, my friends, is the Art of the Deal!

Of course the dam wall will have to be built beyond the flood plain of the Rio Grande. The 1970 “Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International Boundary” states that the joint U.S.-Mexico International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) “must approve construction of works proposed in either country” along those rivers. It explicitly prohibits the construction of projects “which, in the judgment of the commission, may cause deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of its flood flows.”

You should know this:

Indeed, as the Arizona Daily Star reported in 2008, a 5-mile border fence constructed along Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument’s southern border “became a dam” during a flash flood that year.

A 17-page U.S. Interior Department report at the time concluded that because of the fencing, water that normally flowed north to south ended up flowing laterally. As the Daily Star summed it up: “A wash directly west of Lukeville flowed more than 200 feet along the fence and through the port of entry at the international border, causing flood damage to private property, government offices and businesses.”

And that was just a tiny fence during a relatively small flash flood. What happens when a barrier is built that has to withstand floods along the Rio Grande that are so vast they can be seen from outer space — like those from September 2008, captured by NASA’s Terra satellite?

As these events make clear, it’s impractical to build the wall or barrier right next to a huge river like the Rio Grande that increasingly floods. This means it would need to be placed far from the river, potentially miles away.

But as a v***l video from former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) recently pointed out, that means the border would “Block access to the Rio Grande” and require seizing vast amounts of land from Texans through eminent domain, which in turn would “Exile hundreds of thousands of acres of the U.S. to a no mans land between the river and the wall.”

The bottom line is that building a concrete or steel wall or barrier along the Rio Grande River is a terrible and illegal idea. And yet, the president is shutting down much of the federal government simply because Congress won’t fund it.

Put the gddamn troops on the border and shoot the mfers that come across illegally. How many will have to be shot before the rest get the message and stop coming? Quien Sabe?

You're exactly right. If the wall is going to be a big failure, then give Trump the $5.6 Billion he's asking for and sit back and watch him fail. You guys on the left are so anxious to se him fail, go for it. Your perfect opportunity. He's going to get it done any way you look at it. So, why avoid the obvious? It wasn't immoral or inappropriate three years ago, five years ago, six years ago when you all v**ed for it. the biggest low life hypocrites on the Planet, no v**e because Trump and the country need it.

No need to be a smartass. I am 100% against the invasion of the US by i******s, criminals and terrorist. But a wall, fence, barrier will be an expensive failure and will not stop i******s, et al coming across. In the first place, it will have to be built in some places more than a MILE from the Rio Grande due to flooding. Otherwise it will get washed away or act as a dam when it backs up debris and flood unintended areas on either side which would be against a 1970 international treaty, then since it cut through private farm and ranch land, not to mention peoples backyards, it will have to have access gaps to the river, therefore defeating its purpose. Besides before the wall is built its construction will be tied up in court for years with people suing to stop it from cutting their property up, devaluing it or inadequate compensation by the government for taking it.

I am for stationing troops on the border and giving them the authority to use wh**ever means necessary to STOP the invasion by i******s, criminals, and terrorists. THAT would work. It would also be good for the economies of all the towns and cities as the troops and theior families moved in, houses, cars, food, clothing, etc. As far as expense, the troops are going to get paid regardles of where they are stationed and it depends on how many it would take to get the job done.

I agree to stationing troops. Perhaps permanently or at least until the crossing attempts are only in the thousands per month instead of the tens of thousands. Both a wall AND troops are used quite effectively in Israel. Before they built their southern wall, the troops alone were being overwhelmed. I am also in favor of increased funding for border security as a whole for more surveillance tools. Despite the latter being far more expensive than a wall.

Some of the pressure was reduced when Trump instituted the policy of leaving the asylum seekers to wait OUTSIDE our borders while their applications are evaluated instead of either holding them in detention or releasing them on their own recognizance. It would have been even better if the courts hadn't ruled that the part of his policy to refuse asylum to anyone breaching our border instead of putting them at the forefront for asylum evaluation. So those asylum seekers who don't want to wait have a message that if only they manage to get a foot on US soil, they will get an automatic evaluation for asylum.

Just because a wall is impractical or unfeasible along some portions of the border, is no reason to not build a wall where it IS practical and feasible, and can do the most good. It is far cheaper than most other options. What Obama did in portions of TX was not only ineffective, but actually did far more harm than good. And while the money was being spent to build a wall where only an i***t would think it could work; other portions of the border where a wall would have been useful were being inundated. Where it was needed Obama turned his back on. Where it was infeasible, Obama ran roughshod over American property owners and paid far more to construct. So I agree with you that the Obama wall is an offense.

So to recap. I am in favor of the use of troops. In fact I'd prefer for them to not be so restricted especially in not being allowed to be armed. I am in favor of the use of high tech tools and equipment to assist in border security, including military equipment such as gunships. I am also in favor of the wall where it can be effectively used.

No need to be a smartass. I am 100% against the invasion of the US by i******s, criminals and terrorist. But a wall, fence, barrier will be an expensive failure and will not stop i******s, et al coming across. In the first place, it will have to be built in some places more than a MILE from the Rio Grande due to flooding. Otherwise it will get washed away or act as a dam when it backs up debris and flood unintended areas on either side which would be against a 1970 international treaty, then since it cut through private farm and ranch land, not to mention peoples backyards, it will have to have access gaps to the river, therefore defeating its purpose. Besides before the wall is built its construction will be tied up in court for years with people suing to stop it from cutting their property up, devaluing it or inadequate compensation by the government for taking it.

I am for stationing troops on the border and giving them the authority to use wh**ever means necessary to STOP the invasion by i******s, criminals, and terrorists. THAT would work. It would also be good for the economies of all the towns and cities as the troops and theior families moved in, houses, cars, food, clothing, etc. As far as expense, the troops are going to get paid regardles of where they are stationed and it depends on how many it would take to get the job done.

MY liberal buddies? You are the delusional one. Why not? The US military has been shooting people all over the world for decades.

You are delusional if you think a wall (where feasible) will keep out i******s and still give landowners access to the river. You are delusional if you think landowners whose property will be split or, worse, confiscated are not going to file law suits that will be tied up in the courts for YEARS and delay or prevent the wall. You think I'm wrong? Hide and watch.

The soldiers are going to be paid regardless of what they are doing or where they are. I would rather see them protecting our borders from invasion than in, say, Korea or Germany.

Y

Sigh, I give up. "Just because a wall is impractical or unfeasible along some portions of the border, is no reason to not build a wall where it IS practical and feasible, and can do the most good." Where the wall IS feasible is where it will have to be built out of the flood plain of the river and that will mean it will split private property and cut parts of it off from farmers and ranchers access to the river. And to build it so as NOT to cut those farmers and ranchers off from their river access will render it ineffective. Plus those same farmers and ranches whose livelihoods and lifestyles will be dirupted have vowed to tie it up in the courts for years. Court cases as a result of bushie's 2006 Border Act have still NOT been settled.

Let the troops patrol the river and stop the mfers from coming across in the first place!