A wall will stop illegals from coming in and sucking money from us from the welfare system.

A wall will cost a few billion to build and maintain eac year...


Illegal immigrants will suck tens of billions more by way of the welfare system.

A wall can't stop illegals from coming in entirely, but it will stop the vast majority.

Berlin Wall is proof, only a few thousand crossed the wall, out of millions.

Edited 10/28/2016 14:33:17

stop illegals from coming in and sucking money from us from the welfare system

Illegals benefit from the US welfare system? Do you mean the nice stay in prison, when they are caught or the free ticket back when they are deported?

Illegal immigrants will suck tens of billions more by way of the welfare system.

do you have any proof for this statement?

Berlin Wall is proof, only a few thousand crossed the wall, out of millions.

Interesting quote, so you only need more watch towers and self-shooting-devices. do you want to imply that there is an ideological issue with mexico?

Here's the man giving a very clear plan.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/19/trump_on_border_maybe_theyll_call_it_the_trump_wall.html

If you fast forward to the last 10 seconds, he proposes a solution that anyone could use to defeat the wall...

^

Illegals don't get welfare because if they applied for it, they'd be caught as illegals.

The Economist said it will cost $15 billion to $25 billion to *build*, and that doesn't even include maintenance.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/07/daily-chart-16

If you want to disagree with the most trusted news source, that's all fine with me. Go cite a Fox News article which is basically just as well trusted across the board.



+1 MGSB. 10 foot wall, 11 foot ladder. 30 foot wall, 31 foot ladder.

Also, what about all the parts where they can't build, on the river? They're going to have to slice through some more private property using eminent domain, like they've done before. This harms American families which goes against what the wall stands for.

It won't stop drugs. Cannons, catapults, even a good throw, can get them over. Don't forget tunnels, as well. (Even more money wasted if you maintain underground stuff).

Finally, how will Donald Trump make Mexico pay for it?

^^^ LMAO that is so true

Edited 10/28/2016 16:25:28

@Ox going by the graph, The Wall Street Journal is the most trusted, not the economist.

neither worked in the past nor in the presence.

Actually, border walls have a surprisingly good success rate at keeping away the unwanted. As already mentioned, the Berlin Wall, as well as the Great Wall of China and for just about a couple thousand years so did the Theodosian walls. And some of these stopped invaders that actually shoot, bomb and ram them - a border wall between the US and mexico would probably have way lower maintenance.

furthermore who is unwanted, an entire country or ethnicity?

Neither - more like anyone or anything that shouldn't go in unadvertedly.

so the wall is build to keep americans in?

Yes. It's a win-win, the US cages itself and stops putting their finger where they weren't called and the illegal immigration is put to a halt. If anyone has to lose it's the guy who is trying to leave illegally. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@ranek, im not a trump guy but ur acting like a wall means no mexicans will be allowed to immigrate, which is untrue.

Edited 10/28/2016 19:56:00

@Ox going by the graph, The Wall Street Journal is the most trusted, not the economist.

No, they colour it if it is (see note) "percent who trust is significantly different from the percent who distrust". This means, in layman terms: it is pretty certain (probably more than 95%) that more people trust than distrust. This is the case for the Wall Street Journal in all 5 categories, but only in 4 for the Economist (we can't reasonably prove that more consistently conservative people trust it than distrust it)

However, the ranking is based on the absolute difference over all people. So the difference in the percentage that trust the Economist rather than distrust is higher than for the Wall Street Journal.

To illustrate, image the percentage differences would be something like this (as an example, the real numbers can probably be found somewhere)

                     Total  Clib  Mlib  Mixd  Mcon  Ccon
The Economist          50%   68%   74%   60%   46%   02%
Wall Street Journal    40%   31%   45%   47%   41%   36%

While the total is lower for the Wall Street Journal, it is still proven to be more trusted than distrusted over all categories.

Now, Ox's statement is also wrong.

If you want to disagree with the most trusted news source, that's all fine with me. Go cite a Fox News article which is basically just as well trusted across the board.

(1) It is not proven that The Economist is the most trusted news source.
Then what is it:
(a) It was the news source with the biggest difference between trust and distrust. It could be 60% trusted and 10% distrusted, for a difference of 50%. But maybe BBC was 70% trusted and 25% distrusted. This would make BBC more trusted (but also more distrusted).
(b) In this sample! There is no proof that this difference is significantly larger than that of BBC. There is only proof that the difference is bigger than 0.
(2) Fox News is NOT basically just as well trusted across the board.
(a) Both for The Economist and Fox (and many others) it was proven that across the board more people trust them than distrust them. Again, it's about the difference between trust and distrust, not about trust itself.
(b) It is not clear and not shown whether the trust-distrust difference is significantly different between The Economist and Fox, but it may be! So while both are different from 0, one may still be much larger than the other.
(c) Even if the trust-distrust difference is not significantly different, then we simply cannot claim that there is a difference. The Economist may still have a higher trust-distrust difference, but we simply may not have been able to prove this with the study.
(d) In the sample, The Economist clearly has a better trust - distrust percentage, the difference in ranks is pretty large.

This is all statistics, please do not try to lightly interpret it and popularize it without understanding it, you would be no better than our politicians and journalist. If you want to prove a point, use the statistics correctly. But to do that, you may need to follow a class at university level.

I want to make it clear that I wasn't being serious at all when I said that Fox News is as reliable as The Economist. I don't know if you could pick up on that.

Stopping mexican guerrilla tactics would help to sharpen our national defense and reserve forces.

No one addressing the feasibility of building a wall in a creek that floods occasionally?

"Uhoh an geographic feature that would prevent a fence from being constructed on the border? Better insult the person bringing it up so I don't have to think about it."

Since you're a brit (at least I think you are) I'll explain what an arroyo is. It's basically a dry creek that will flood periodically, and is common on the US-Mexican Border. Building a wall/fence would be unfeasible here due to the nature of an arroyo.

>implying its impossible to build a wall around it

Might not be impossible, but it's an major impediment and can still cause problems with construction. Say a segment of wall is built on a north bank of an arroyo. The ground under the wall would still get weaker and might give way and collapse the wall. Even if you forget about the hardships of building around these things, you have to remember that this will lengthen the wall making it more expensive and harder to patrol while giving it more weaknesses (more wall built more chance of that wall having a deficiency).

As already mentioned, the Berlin Wall, as well as the Great Wall of China

let's start shooting Mexicans who are not approved to cross. Have you seen the Berlin Wall? It's much worse than anything Trump wants.

As for the Great Walls of China, well, China was overtaken by the Mongols and later Manchu, even with their kill-on-sight policy. I don't think they were on the whole worth it.

1. spics leeching off the American gov costs more money than the wall

Agreed, which is why we should get rid of welfare.

2. so what? it can be repaired

There'll still be exploitable areas of the wall

I suppose, but even the best armor has weaknesses to it. It's an inevitability to the wall, and the geographic impediments make more of them regardless of the level of construction and maintenance than otherwise.

Why will the wall work?
Make America undesirable.

spics make America undesirable

Shitpost discarded

Ahem, tunnels.