JoyV

You are fixated on the Rio Grande. The US/Mexico border is not just along the Rio Grande.

You have been saying that a wall should not be built because there are areas where it isn't feasible to build a fence along our border. You then complain Trump will take land from private property owners to build a wall up to a mile from the border as if this is the only option. I say if it isn't feasible, no wall should be built there but other security measures used, and build the wall along portions of the border where it IS feasible!

No where in any of my posts have I advocated building a wall where it isn't feasible. No where have I advocated building through private property with many security breaches by gates on private property.

buffalo Loc: Texas

The US/Mexico border is 1954 miles long including the coastal boundaries. The Rio Grande is 1260 miles of that border. 95% of which in privately owned along the Rio Grande.

Build the dam wall where it is "feasible" and it will be totally ineffective. You CANNOT build a wall that will NOT be on private property in Texas even if feasible for 95% of the land along the Rio Grande in Texas is privately owned and most of the rest does not need a wall.

But by all means build a dam wall on the rest of the border. Unless the incentives are removed to stop the invasion, the invasion will not stop.

JoyV

Unless the left and the elite change their tune and WANT our border secured, even strict enforcement of e-verify with resulting loss of job opportunities for i******s, will not stop the incentive. As long as there are groups and individuals ENCOURAGING invasion, it will not stop the incentive. And so long as drugs and crime pay, it will not stop the incentive. And so long as there are terrorist, the incentive to find ways to sneak into the country will remain. These invaders are being recruited with promises of wealth and ease. A lot of money is being spent to organize and support these caravans. As for the criminal element, no one has ever found a way to de-incentivize crime whether from within or without a border. And since terrorism is not rational, no rational means except diligence and enforcement will make a dent. Make the border more difficult to breach and less will succeed in entering.

But why do believe the wall will be totally ineffective if it does not cover the entire length? And if that were the case, why would it be MORE effective to have no wall? Where the wall is built, manned, and even a portion of the surveillance used with it as is used now on the wide open border or those areas with ridiculous simply barriers which can be walked through or stepped over; crossers will either have to use far more effort and time to get over or shift their attentions to areas without a wall. These areas can receive the extra security and surveillance shifted from the current high traffic areas. Of course nothing will be 100% effective. But any reduction in successful illegal border crossings will be mean the wall is effective.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Are you saying that the border patrol is lying when they say a wall in many places will help and in others is absolutely essential? Are you saying you know more than they who actually work there and try to stop i*****l i*********n and smuggling? Are you saying that Trump is wanting to wall up the entire border?

Smedley_buzkill

Which Bush is doing this?

fullspinzoo

Pretty bad when you get your Bush's mixed up....and even worse when you mix them up with Trump!