Would Trump supporters be OK with a wall made from steel vs. concrete?

Why not landmines? I'm sure there's enough kicking around and if not there's more than enough money in the US military budget to cover it. Then a line of artillery about 25km back or so maybe some snipers in between and a couple hundred drones patrolling. I mean that'd probably be cheaper than a wall in the end and has a pretty good deterrent effect. I mean once you've watched a couple of your buddies get blown to little pieces it'll probably make you think twice about trying to illegally cross the border.

I mean you could get real creative. You could have chunks of depleted uranium for shrapnel. Have drone pilots and snipers aim to wound and maim rather than going for kill shots again makes a pretty good deterrent to see your buddies lying writhing in pain with a chunk of their arm or leg missing while they slowly die in the sand just across the border. You know if you go try and help you'd be next and you know no one would help you if it were you.

Oh also....I guess stuff like tear gas bombs and such would be ok. They're not military combatants so technically it wouldn't be a war crime. That only counts if it's used on a battlefield.

I mean # with all America's military hardware I don't even know why a wall is even being proposed.

a reply to: JAGStorm
If it was me I would be asking for the best tech. Motions sensors, vibration sensors, any kind of detection tech known to man. That way Mexico doesn't have to pay for it. It's not a wall. Dems can't use that as an excuse and may have to work with the prez. I also think 25 billion dollars will buy a lot of tech and the manpower to use it. As far as engineering it, the blueprint is being used at Area 51.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think, as a huuuuuuge supporter, that it should be made out of paper maché and be a giant pińata.
It should be stuffed with Payday Bars and Now or Laters.

Well, as a huuuuuuuuuge trump hater, i think you are a terrible person for wanting that.

All walls are immoral, and the fact you want sugary treats in it to purposefully damage the noble immigrants teeth and give them diabetes is disgusting.

I'm sorry could you please tell me what a noble immigrant is? There's nothing noble about someone who is so willing to break the law. The fact is that you don't have to like a law, but you do have to follow it. That's why it's called a law and not a suggestion. There's nothing noble about someone who comes here to destroy the land and sell drugs to our children. Before you go there I'm convinced that MAYBE 1 in 20 is looking for a real job. The other 19 may seem to have a job but they are also running drugs for the cartel to pay them back for getting them into the country, and 1 in 20 is probably too low. It's likely more like 1 in 100. It costs them 5 grand per person, per attempt. On average it takes 3 trys to make it across. That's 15 grand per person from someone who claims to be poor, REALLY?

a reply to: MikeA

Grambler is being sarcastic.

a reply to: MikeA

Well I support the wall, was just poking fun pretending to be a trump hater.

How about recycled plastic?

We could use all that plastic we're cleaning out of the Pacific, plus plastic we recycle already, and melt it down into lego blocks about the size of cinder blocks. Melt in broken glass, just for good measure.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Doesn't matter what it is built from, I would personally leave that up to the Professional Men & Women at DHS/CBP/ICE and Sec. Neilson to decide. But I am personally amenable to whatever building substrate they determine is most effective at accomplishing the task of erecting a formidable barrier.

Trump's promise of building a wall has already been satisified, though, from my perspective. It was always a crapshoot whether a conservative (and especially leftist) Congress would actually do their job and carry out the American People's business. Either way, Trump has already won by fighting tooth and nail for this wall, our border, our safety and our nation's sovereignty. Win, lose or draw... he has put the World on notice that our national interests will be put ahead of theirs. That we do not have open borders, that we reject globalization, and still believe in American exceptionalism/manifest destiny.

In that way, Trump wins whether the wall gets built or not. Of course, every drop of blood shed by an illegal alien is on the left's hands. As long as they can live with it, I suppose I can too. I just hope our gun rights advocates continue fighting the good fight, giving Citizens the tools we need to protect ourselves from all sorts of threats including the threat posed by unknowable foreign nationals who may or may not be violent criminals. In that regard, it is the same gamble we take with any other citizen. They could be violent, they could be friendly, they could be indifferent. Who knows? But lets be clear that Dems are voting for more crime vs. less crime (however more or less those numbers factually are). Lets also not forget they arguing for enabling violations of US law, so don't forget the precedent they set.

Of course that hasn't stopped the left wing from advocating for frankly moronic things. Take the political farce of indicting Russian military intelligence officers as an example. How many of us here called the fact that US citizens & military personnel faced a grave new danger of reciprocal political arrests? But precedent be damned, those lefties have plenty of virtues left to signal.

Too bad they never seem to think of or care about the consequences.

a reply to: dug88

I bet illegal border crossing would at least be down by ~100%

There is precedent. Any guesses as to which party set that precedent? HINT: It wasn't a Republican.

I think simply turning them away at the border, before entering unlawfully and having an effective repatriation regime in place would be more than sufficient to address this minor/moderate issue.

Tracking down those who entered fraudulently, including those who defraud the United States by falsely invoking an asylum defense, is another good step forward.

Frankly, folks in many South American nations haven't done a very good job at taking care of their countries, instituting a functioning government or generally leading productive lives. How many times & places have they allowed socialism to fester in this century alone? What makes you think they'll do any better for us here?

America first. Ask not what this country can do for you, but what you can do for this country. The basis of patriotism is giving, not taking.

This wall has almost took as long to make as Pink Floyd's.

We don't need no education, to vote.

a reply to: JAGStorm

One made out of rainbows and unicorns seems more lightly.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: dug88

I bet illegal border crossing would at least be down by ~100%

There is precedent. Any guesses as to which party set that precedent? HINT: It wasn't a Republican.

I think simply turning them away at the border, before entering unlawfully and having an effective repatriation regime in place would be more than sufficient to address this minor/moderate issue.

Tracking down those who entered fraudulently, including those who defraud the United States by falsely invoking an asylum defense, is another good step forward.

Yeah it was sarcastic. I agree with that. I think the wall wouldn't actually do much. The problemm isn't people sneaking across the desert, it's people brazenly getting through border crossings with paid off guards or stacked in the back of trucks or piled into boats, ineffective enforcement on those that are caught, no punishments for employers caught hiring illegal workers, state and federal governments providing services to them.

It's a problem because they know once they're across there's a good chance they can stay indefinitely. A wall won't change that.

a reply to: dug88

You know if you simply shoot any and all trespassers in the head Jesus could sort them out in the afterlife for daring to exist and cross that beloved border.

Happy 2019 planet Earth, at least i hope it is.

If Trump literally means steel, it'll be scrapped as fast as workers can put it up! (From both sides of the border.)

Perhaps the better term would be iron, as in the Cold War sense. Indeed concrete and steel in places, but also fences, to open space with patrols and drones.

I still don't understand why there are two sides to this question.

Yes, we need some kind of border security and no, it doesn't absolutely have to be a wall.

We're fixated on building a wall and not building a wall. Like we're a retarded nation or something.

Should we use landmines? Would that be ok?
We wouldn't risk American citizens as they wouldn't go to Mexico undocumented.
And as there really is no border threat no one would step on them anyhow, right?

originally posted by: headorheart
a reply to: JAGStorm

I think the cost is atrocious and better spent elsewhere.

I would be more open to a discussion about steel reinforcement in areas.

What I really would like is an actual plan. Not just fighting over a dollar amount for essentially nothing.

The cost of a the wall vs $155 billion annually for Illegals?

And if they help the economy so much, why didn't it work for Mexico?

Just make a twelve foot high fence full of razor and barb wire with a few electric strands on it to keep the animals out. A deep trench filled with piranhas or gators will keep people from trying to smash it down with vehicles. Can I get a job overseeing this project? I want to witness the trials to see if it works.

I keep seeing these photos in the news of people sitting on top of the fences we already have. I'd like to see some kind of spikes on top or something to make that uncomfortable.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Why not use tactical nukes or rods from the gods on the bastards heads?

Show them there Mexicans how its really done.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Scepticaldem

What not use tactical nukes or rods from the gods on the bastards heads?

Show them there Mexicans how its really done.

You didnt want to address my question but instead use racial rhetoric? Got it