The Border Wall End Game

Unless the $14 Billion seized from Mexican drug lord EL Chapo has been spoken for, another option is to use that $$$, as Ted Cruz suggested this week.

Source: www.americanthinker.com...

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

President Obama made "border protection" his #1 law enforcement Priority in 2013. Built a 700 mile fence.

Source: www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: seagull

But that'll be every bit as unpopular as the "wall" is.

I'm sure people don't lock their doors too because it is also not 100% secured. Just like a locked door it keeps out 99%, and you have other things for the other 1%... Wall is the same

I think the OP is spot on except for one part, the wanting / needing / causing a "false flag"

I think the quote from "batman begins" applies here

remember when he had Ra's al Ghul at his mercy on the train

Ra's al Ghul : Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?

Bruce Wayne : I won't kill you.

Bruce Wayne : ... But I don't have to save you.

What trump is doing is letting the result of all the democrats, rino republicans, and any politician that supports them who continue this lack of support for boarder security, along with pro ILLEGAL immigrants support destroy themselves.

Look there are ALREADY incidents of innocent americans being taken hostage, threatened, and killed by those illegally crossing the boarder.
be it drug cartels, desperate crossers and even professional hit squads like the zetas.
the ranchers on the boarders leave in constant fear of their cattle (if ranchers) , their property and their lives to the effect they never go out unarmed and sometimes not even at night.

along with alot more that if the main stream media ever reported at even half the level of the anti trump propoganda the american people would (figuratively and maybe literally , I hope not the later) ANY POLITICIAN against boarder security, the wall and for illegal immigration.

It is not IF a major incident happens that cannot be covered up but WHEN.

then the president can not only take LEGAL ACTIONS to build a wall/boarder security but the american people will MORE DEMAND IT and in short "cut off at the knees" (as it were) ANYONE (be politician or press) that stood in his way.

but until it happens trump is holding EVERY POLITICIAN feet to the fire and FORCING them to stand and be counted for their votes, opinions, and actions.

each vote, each day of the shutdown and if they decide to overide is veto they will have to answer to the same people that not only are effected by shut down, effected by illegal aliens, but also those who by majority voted for trump because of this very issue.

I hope the the politicians get a grip on reality before anything major happens as result of the current course of action being choosen by left and pro illegals.

but if they dont I suspect the people are more on trump side than against him on this issue.

In short
trump doesnt have to play the political game and give in

but he doesnt have to save the politicians from the results of their actions

scrounger

Merely a fiscally irresponsible oversized monument to his base. Doesn't do anything to curb the hiring of illegals. If he actually cared he'd block the hiring of illegals and severely punish corporations/businesses that hire them. He knows who is hiring them (since he likes to employ them as well). But you all know that would put too many important industries in the US down the tubes. And Trump knows it too… as if he'd hurt his rich pals in the process. The wall is just a ridiculous "feel good righties" waste of time that would be easily traversable by a bunch of different ways. I mean, who knows, maybe Mexico will step in and build him a monument… being the actual promise.

a reply to: okrian

ok lets look at the issue you raised.

first "financial irresponsible oversized monument to his base"
you do know that illegals cost the taxpayer over 300 BILLION dollars annually?
that is a conservative estimate (to which i suspect its quite more) on incarceration, crime, and social services (from welfare , schooling, medical, ect) .

this does not take into account money shipped back to mexico, loss of wages/benefits to LEGAL citizens, ect.

given that the cost of the wall max is 70 billion with roughly 300 million to maintain.

If the wall is ONLY 50 percent effective, that means building it AND MAINTAINING IT for 10 years will cost 73 billion thus leaving roughly 75 BILLION savings to us taxpayers in the FIRST YEAR ALONE with the wall BUILT AND MAINTAINED FOR 10 YEARS.
every year after that is then around 150 BILLION SAVINGS .

even if the wall was only 25 percent effective...
by the figures given your first year savings would PAY FOR THE WALL AND 10 YEARS OF MAINTENANCE.
the rest of the time 75 BILLION A YEAR SAVINGS TO TAXPAYERS.

so your comment about it being " fiscally irresponsible oversized monument to his base" at the lower 25 percent effectiveness (which is guessing UNREALISTICALLY low by any standards) is factually BS.

second point.

"Doesn't do anything to curb the hiring of illegals. If he actually cared he'd block the hiring of illegals and severely punish corporations/businesses that hire them."

while a good point on the outside misses a few FACTS.

some republicans are as you say, but most of the people fighting implementing what you suggest are LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS (including obama).

lets take a little test.. who said/did it..

"they (illegals) are doing jobs americans wont do "..... DEMOCRATS.

"they just want to make a better life for themselves so its not bad there here"..... DEMOCRATS.

"Fought e-verify tooth and nail claiming racism, doesnt work, ect" ....... DEMOCRATS.

Who had the majority for two years in every part of politics , and didnt propose ONE DAMN THING YOU STATED..... DEMOCRATS AGAIN.

who mostly grants illegals DRIVERS LICENCES ......... DEMOCRATS.

who fought cutting welfare for ABLE BODIED AMERICAN CITIZENS to make them get jobs (yes even done by illegals).....DEMOCRATS.

So again while SOME republicans did side with issue you brought up....MOST WERE DONE BY DEMOCRATS.

now the big one...
who mostly is fighting DEPORTING ILLEGALS...... democrats.

so on second issue (you factually are WRONG and ideologically bias on who your calling out.

lastly on the "promise of mexico paying for the wall"

mexico to put those funds they were supposed to use to improve themselves and STOP THE ILLEGALS .
I guess you missed the point of the SAVINGS the wall would have, the ideas such as TAXING transactions of money sent back to mexico and also cutting aid to cover the cost of the wall.

but I guess things like that as they all were DOABLE kinda torpedo your old well used talking point

now are you gonna follow the usual talking points by calling me "unchristian", blind trump supporter, racist, anti immigrant or just go to the personal attacks?



scrounger

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh nice! What a good conspiracy!

a reply to: scrounger

A star was not enough for this post,these are for you...

I will add you to my cookie list,mama!

a reply to: TheRedneck

We're all just waiting for the dead border baby at the end of February.

no one is wondering what happened to the billoons seized from el chapo by the US?

a reply to: scrounger

So why didn’t Trump, while he had both the senate and the house, push hard to get legislation that allowed more checks and investigations, and much more severe punishments for employers hiring illegals?

a reply to: seagull

He needn't have to have a "false flag" incident. Declare a national emergency, such as in the aftermath of a hurricane, or something of that nature...

Human wave migration, or the threat of it, should qualify.

Yes, but there is the synchronicity of February to consider, which is why I suspect a false flag. The proposed CR was designed to last through February, as is Mattis' tenure as SoD.

I really believe Mattis' disagreement with Trump over the Syria withdrawals is not so much over the withdrawals themselves (we simply can't and really shouldn't just stay there indefinitely), but more to what Trump plans to do with the troops once they get back. Two months over a disagreement on principle seems a long time to me to wait about leaving. That was actually my first thought when the retirement was announced: what happens in February?

Then of course I realized that the proposed CR ran out in February. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that Trump has caught word of a secret false flag planned by the Democrats either.

My next concern would be, what would the purpose of a false flag operation be? Obviously the same reason they have been used in the past: to sway public sentiment. As it stands right now, there is substantial support for a wall to be built, but there is also substantial opposition. After a false flag, that could easily change; we've all seen how easily the public can be lead this way. There will be some political blowback to making this end run around Congress, and there has to be a very good reason in the minds of the American public for it to be accepted.

Then again, perhaps there is some planned legal action against the largest decriers of the wall planned... that could work as well as a false flag and could be planned out. That would tie in to the recent shifts of power in the DoJ. Trump does have access to the FBI now. Or perhaps it is something less sinister, like the ending of the Mueller probe with Trump's exoneration. Maybe?

I'm just convinced at this point that the timing is set somehow.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: odzeandennz
no one is wondering what happened to the billoons seized from el chapo by the US?

The government players divide it up into their private bank accounts. These men don't work for just their salary.

I've said since day one that the wall (a practical, purposed one) will never be built. It is a ball to be tossed around. Business doesn't want it. They get higher consideration then the regular citizens of the country. illegals are a money making business and not just by working cheap.

a reply to: roadgravel

of course.
the koolaid in the tap water keeps the American people occupied....and the nonstop drugs entertainment and smut.

the guy was worth a billion USD and estimated 2 billion USD in assets... taken down by the us government, now on trial in the US (for some reason..cuz ee made it so)..yet 0 (zero) mention of where the money went.

now the government is partially shut down and Americans are left without paychecks due to the president.

a reply to: Phage

I thought the whole point was that it's permanent. A Trump legacy.

Nothing in the US is permanent and you know that. The very next Democrat administration would simply tear down pertinent portions as part of their open borders policy.

And I don't want a wall either.

And neither do I for one simple reason........it is a pointless waste of money because........nothing in the US is permanent! One POTUS builds one, the next POTUS puts holes in it.

I hope Trump follows through on his tweet stating that he will not be signing ANY future legislation and vetoing everything that crosses his desk for the next two years unless it has border wall funding in it.

At this point, as far as I care, let them all spend the next two years doing nothing but investigating each other and draining the swamp. All I know is that our new Attorney General better be willing to play his role to do it!

a reply to: scrounger

boarder security

The original bill that trump said he would sign was backed by democrats and had 1.6B for boarder security.

So you see that democrats are trying to fund boarder security, just not the wall.

1.6B Billion with a B. All for boarder security.

a reply to: okrian

If he actually cared he'd block the hiring of illegals and severely punish corporations/businesses that hire them.

He will NEVER do that. Because he is one of them.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

So you see that democrats are trying to fund boarder security, just not the wall.

The wall is border security, at least a large part of it.

So far, I have heard several claims about the wall:

• The wall will not be effective.
  
  Wrong, so obviously wrong as to be ludicrous. People cannot walk through walls.
  
  
• The wall can be overcome by ladders.
  
  Yes, it could, if the ladder were longer than the wall is high. However, ladders that long are heavy and bulky, and not something normally brought across the desert by people wanting to avoid attention. A ladder that long would be painfully obvious and thus would likely cause an alert to border patrol.
  
  
• The wall won't stop tunnels.
  
  Not stop them, no. But ground-penetrating radar, which is now older technology, can detect a mouse tunneling underneath, much more so a person. The problem is that it is hard to set such sensors up in the middle of an abandoned arid desert. The wall would provide infrastructure that would allow such sensors to be implemented.
  
  
• The wall is too expensive.
  
  Democrats in Congress already agreed to appropriate five times the present amount requested earlier this year, but their demands in exchange for that money would have harmed overall border security. We just sent twice the amount to Central America to help them improve their countries. It works out to 0.13% of the Federal budget. That's not a huge amount.
  
  
• The wall won't help with VISA overstays.
  
  No, it won't. But it's not supposed to. It's there to help with illegal border crossings. This argument is sort of like saying, "A car won't cross water, so no one needs a car." Wrong. If you want to cross water, you use a boat. You still need a car to drive across land.
  
  
• The wall won't stop people from going around it.
  
  Around it is in the ocean. We have the Coast Guard already in place for that. See above.
  
  
• The wall won't stop employers form offering jobs to illegals.
  
  No, it won't. It's not supposed to. See above.
  
  
• We need illegal aliens to harvest crops, etc.
  
  Then why did we make them illegal? If we need immigrant workers, we have programs in place for that.
  
  
• The wall is a symbol of [insert reason of the day here].
  
  Who cares? If it works, it works.
  
  
• The wall is isolationism.
  
  No, the wall will not close off the ports of entry at all. People and goods will still be able to move back and forth, as long as they do it legally.
  
  
• The wall is racist.
  
  Please. We're talking about keeping out the same people whom the Mexican and Tijuana governments are both wanting to leave. Everything is not racist. That card is worn out; give it a rest.
  
  
• Make Mexico pay for the wall.
  
  They will. Not by writing a check, but by the amount of money we will save instead of sending it to Mexico or Mexican interests. That includes social services used by illegal aliens, money spent to combat opioid abuse, lost American wages being sent to Mexico, etc., etc., etc. It's an investment. If someone buys a rental house that will bring in more income than the cost of the mortgage and insurance, it pays for itself... but someone must buy it before it does that.
  
  
• More patrols would be better.
  
  We're talking about 2000 miles of border, of which 90% can be crossed easily on foot. There are, however, few roads along much of the border. It's just stretches of semi-arid desert. To replace the wall with people would be a Herculean task, requiring thousands upon thousands of border guards stationed in open areas simply waiting there in case someone chooses that spot to try and cross. And that's also three shifts a day plus weekends/holidays. That would be much more expensive than a wall, and the cost would be regular and ongoing instead of a one-time expense.
  
  
• Even after we build it, we'll be saddled with paying to maintain it.
  
  True, but the cost of maintenance pales in comparison to the cost of construction. The first several years will likely see almost no maintenance cost.
  
  
• We could do just as much with a fence.
  
  Fences work fine with animals, because animals are not able to cut through a fence. Humans are able to cut through a fence in a few minutes using a simple set of inexpensive pliers small enough to be carried in a pocket.

Hopefully I covered everything so we can maybe get back to discussing how Trump might get his wall instead of why he shouldn't.

TheRedneck