If by a wall

My Recent Posts

I have thought long and hard about the idea of a border wall and many people have asked me how I feel about it. Today I'd like to take this opportunity to state my position with the clarity and precision that such a delicate subject deserves.

 

If by a wall you mean an edifice to protect our citizens from the scourge of guns and drugs, to keep out those who would unfairly compete with the American worker by laboring at cut rate wages, to stop those nefarious characters who would traffic in human bodies.  If you mean to stop those who would unfairly jump to the front of the line while others who have played  by the rules wait years for their opportunity then I say sign me up. I'm all for a wall.

 

    But if you mean that structure which would deny the promise of America  to those huddling masses yearning to breathe free.  If by a wall you mean a barrier to separate families, to cause untold hardship on those who have trekked hundreds or thousands of miles to escape from oppression and tyranny, brutal violence and rape, If you mean by a wall something that will say to the world America has forgotten her promise written on the copper tablet of that lovely lady in the harbor as a beacon of hope to the tired and the poor and oppressed then No Sir, sorry but I am dead set against it.

 

Thats how I feel and its a conviction that I hold so dear that no special interests are going to move me one inch from my position. You can excoriate me for my principles but thats where I stand  and if I must stand alone because these ideas arent fashionable in some circles then so be it.

 

 

Comments

Bill Kamps Added Feb 1, 2019 - 1:41pm
Nicely said Ana.  Sadly our politicians cant sort out the nuances of what you described.  For them immigration is subject used for political advantage, not a real problem that needs to be solved with consistent, enforceable rules that make sense for the people on both sides of the border.
 
I dont know if we need more miles of barrier or not.  Probably that is a smaller part of the total immigration issue. 
 
I do know that if we enforced our employment regulations better, there would be fewer jobs available for those who come here without documentation.  We currently  make essentially no effort to enforce these laws, and then wonder why so many come here.  In the past in WB I have described how these laws are ignored, and how easy it would be to enforce them to a greater degree.
George N Romey Added Feb 1, 2019 - 1:51pm
It's not the simple.  Some of those yearning to breathe "democracy" or the "American Dream" have few skills, no education, can't speak English and have a family to support.  Their ability to provide for that family is severely hampered in a country in which they have little to no economic value.  Who is going to provide for their basis financial means?  The rest of us.
 
Or they have skills but are willing to work for much cheaper wages and salaries taking the ability for educated, skilled Americans to make a decent living for which they have invested time and money into education and training.  
 
In the early 20th century there was an abundance of jobs.  Sure they were usually the bottom of the barrel jobs but people made do.  Today there is social services but they come at a cost.  Add to that the trappings today the poor find themselves into.  
 
We forget the mob got started by poor immigrants trying to find a way to survive.  They learned illegal activities and shaking down others, often their own kind was a way to survive in what was a pre social services world.  
Unrepentant Added Feb 1, 2019 - 2:16pm
Unfortunately, the law of the land isn't found inscribed on the SoL, which is why many find themselves...SOL, LOL.
FacePalm Added Feb 1, 2019 - 3:41pm
Ana-
America already allows for more legal immigration than any other country.
Illegal immigration - and all that illegality implies - should be stopped asap, dead in it's tracks.
 
Currently, every city along the border which DID build a wall had a corresponding decrease in crimes of all types, like (as best i recall) the wall built between Arizona and Nogales.
 
i think Trump has given up on the House, especially the promise-breaking Pelosi - and i think he summed up the situation succinctly not long ago, that is, "The question is whether the democrats want to get something out of this negotiation or not."  If "not," the president will simply exercise his authority to prevent invasion of the States (Art. 4, section 4, second sentence) and git'r'dun.  He can also refuse to sign any Pelosi-sponsored bills if they happen to make it through the Senate, too.
 
i just saw an excerpt of poor Pelosi giving a 12 min. news conference in which her mind was wandering more than the front end of a car that lost a tie rod.  Her face kept twitching and contorting too.  I suspect that if she continues her intransigence, to not work for the benefit of this country, it won't be long before she loses her Speakership.
Will Meek Added Feb 1, 2019 - 5:23pm
FacePalm,
One thing I can guarantee you. If Trump tries to use emergency powers to build his Wall. It will be the end of his Presidency. And if he fights it and can end America if he creates a Constitutional crisis this way.
 
Trump will not be allowed to become a king.
John Minehan Added Feb 1, 2019 - 7:15pm
"In the past in WB I have described how these laws are ignored, and how easy it would be to enforce them to a greater degree."
 
Bill makes good points generally and his comments on this issue have been especially on point. 
John Minehan Added Feb 1, 2019 - 7:18pm
"One thing I can guarantee you. If Trump tries to use emergency powers to build his Wall. It will be the end of his Presidency."
 
I suspect it will tie him up in litigation that will last longer than he has left in office.  Yes, there is a statute, but, it requires an "Emergency" and I think that issue is endlessly arguable.
Ana Ross Added Feb 1, 2019 - 9:21pm
Facepalm
Vicente Fox has a video about the wall that I find informative.
Vicente Fox former President of Mexico's message to Donald Trump
 
John Minehan
 Another problem with declaring an emergency is that it sets a dangerous precedent for bypassing the legislature when you dont get your way as president. Will this be his go to method of getting laws passed whenever Congress doesnt agree with him?  The idea that you could have an emergency and do nothing about it for 3 weeks tells you how urgent that emergency really is.  Also when a Democrat becomes president  it seems feasible that healthcare could be seen as an emergency.  At that point all bets are off because we will have just one branch of government to make the rules.  The congress has pretty much given up the role of checks and balances when it comes to military action already. If he declares an emergency because congress wont do his bidding and is allowed to do so by the courts that is how presidents will act every time.  Thats already taken shape with signing statements which you would think are unconstitutional abrogations of Congress's role as legislature.
Autumn Cote Added Feb 1, 2019 - 9:26pm
Please note, unless you comment on the work of others it's against the rules to post articles to Writer Beat.  As always, many thanks for your participation with Writer Beat!
Ana Ross Added Feb 1, 2019 - 9:26pm
John Minehan
 
Another problem with declaring an emergency is that to declare an emergency he will need to have the military build the wall.  Since much of the land is privately owned and if they wont sell it will require eminent domain.  You will then have the spectacle of a Republican president using the US military to seize private property from US citizens which will really make people mad.
Bill H. Added Feb 1, 2019 - 10:36pm
 
Will - You are correct, in that Trump is testing his limits towards becoming a "real" dictator so he can match his mentors in power.
If the USA is still the great country it has always been, Trump declaring a "National Emergency" will finally be his downfall.
If not, then we are in real trouble.
Jim Stoner Added Feb 2, 2019 - 12:16am
Ana,  If I read you right you want the border enhanced where it needs to be, but not as a symbol of a political will to reduce/end immigration.  That's where this thing should end up, when they are all ready. 
 
I'm not afraid of Trump declaring an emergency to build his stupid wall, but I am afraid of what he might do once the emergency has been declared.  Unthinking of this possibility, but concerned about the aftermath of mass terrorism or nuclear holocaust, we have given the office of the Presidency emergency powers that are way beyond what is sensible.  In untrustworthy hands, our republic could be in great danger.  And I find no one more untrustworthy than our whack-a-doodle Wherever Man and his scary neofascist advisers.  
Ryan Messano Added Feb 2, 2019 - 1:01am
Ana, the post is a great illustration of why women should not vote.  You do not consider so much, and your feelings often deceive you.  You are right about the wall being to protect us, but we can't even take care of our own, and you want to take care of other nations.  That makes zero sense.  Also, most immigrants vote Democrat, and thus destroy the very reason why they came to America in the first place, unwittingly, freedom and liberty.
Ana Ross Added Feb 2, 2019 - 1:25am
Ryan Messano
Well Ryan thank you for your input. Let me start by assuring you that I was rational enough to get a degree in philosophy and another degree in electronics so hopefully that should qualify me for my suffrage. If not I ask would like to believe that my years in the Air Force helped me overcome my feminine irrational hormones at least when its not that time. Of course once a month I break down in tears and eat ice cream bemoaning the fact that some big handsome man will come and fix everything that I as a woman am not capable of doing for myself and mansplaining all those terribly difficult concepts that my poor irrational minx just cant understand like how to stop a sink from leaking I can barely get my head around how to oerate an oscilloscope or biasing a transitor. So what were your qualifications for voting aside from having a penis and being white which are no small accomplishments on your part I am sure. 
FacePalm Added Feb 2, 2019 - 2:34am
Will-
FacePalm,
One thing I can guarantee you. If Trump tries to use emergency powers to build his Wall. It will be the end of his Presidency.

Isn't that what you want?  If so, you should be cheering him on.  But i strongly suspect he'll succeed, which is the last thing you want, as his success in this arena - as well as dozens of others - is guaranteeing his re-election, especially against the idiocy of Kamala, "Spartacus," Lie-a-watha, et al.  The "Green New Deal" is absolute insanity, just for starters...then "Medicare for all"?  Projected costs are 3.2 trillion per year over the next ten years, approximately everything the USG gets from all sources of revenue.  It's feel-good pablum for morons who have no clue.  Most Americans are FAR too intelligent to fall for that absolute drivel.
 
And if he fights it and can end America if he creates a Constitutional crisis this way.
Ridiculous.  He has a sworn duty to enforce the laws of the United States, which certainly includes immigration law AND to protect the States from invasion.
 
Trump will not be allowed to become a king.

Like D'OhBama, right?  Perhaps you can explain to me how enforcing the laws already on the books is to "become a king,"  as opposed to D'OhBama, who initiated the entire DACA mess via EO?
 
Ana-
i've seen Vincente Fox interviewed on Tucker Carlson several times, and a more slimy, question-dodging, duplicitous, talking-point puppet-type individual i have rarely observed.  i haven't watched the linked video, yet, but after El Chapo's conviction, especially if Cruz's bill in the Senate gets passed - to confiscate his 16 billion and use that to build the wall - it can then truly be said that at least ONE Mexican has paid for the Wall - not to mention the re-negotiated NAFTA-now-USMCA, which will reduce our trade deficit with Mexico tremendously, all of which is, in essence, simply another way to get Mexico to pay for the Wall.  From what i understand, IAW US banking laws, Trump can also tax all remittances from the US to Mexico, as well, up to 40% - so that would be yet another way to compel Mexico to pay for it, as Mexico currently needs these remittances to prop up it's economy - well, when drug kingpins aren't bribing the Mexican president a 100 mil, that is.  So far, Trump hasn't taxed these funds, but it is certainly within his lawful power to do so.
 
So if Trump declares an emergency, some judge is going to immediately issue an injunction, which will simply engineer expedited appeal to SCOTUS, which will rule in his favor.  Both the USC and the Constitution is on Trump's side.  The Wall WILL get built.
 
Didja ever notice that the democrats - despite their "kum-bah-yah" preaching - have NEVER called for any EXISTING walls between the US and Mexico (esp. S. of San Diego) to come down?  Would you like to speculate on the "whys" of this?  After all, if walls are "immoral," and "everyone is welcome here"(apparently, including the drug smugglers, the human traffickers, the criminals who assault, rape, murder, drunk drive, etc.), then surely they'd favor the removal of ALL walls, right?  Like the ones around Pelosi's palatial estates?  Like the ones around D'OhBama's DC residence?
Ana Ross Added Feb 2, 2019 - 5:25am
Facepalm
As far as the renegotiated trade deal the problem is that none of the money will actually go to the treasury so it will have to be taxed from citizens of the US. I doubt he can confiscate any money for the wall without going through the courts first. I doubt he gets his wall personally I doubt he even wants a wall given that he turned down a deal earlier that would have given him 25 billion for his wall.  I agree with your assesment Fox but it is a very funny video.
 
I dont get your point
Ana Ross Added Feb 2, 2019 - 5:40am
Facepalm 
I dont get your point about Pelosis wall which obviously was ineffective at keeping that psychopath Loomer out.  Are you saying that personal security shouldnt be important for the speaker of the house of  or the former president of the united states? Thats a pretty strange argument. The problem with it is that it assumes a wall is the only way to ensure our borders are safe. That is ridiculous. The US has so much border that no wall can  us safe. The whole wall thing is a big distraction. There is   better far more effective way to stop he flow of immigrants into the US. And that would be to take some steps to see that latin America is a safe prosperous place to live. Take that 25 billion that he wants to  on the wall and develop
Ana Ross Added Feb 2, 2019 - 5:40am
facepalm
Develop
FacePalm Added Feb 2, 2019 - 5:40am
The point is that the wall - the one you referenced initially, not the second one (If by a wall you mean an edifice to protect our citizens from the scourge of guns and drugs, to keep out those who would unfairly compete with the American worker by laboring at cut rate wages, to stop those nefarious characters who would traffic in human bodies.  If you mean to stop those who would unfairly jump to the front of the line while others who have played  by the rules wait years for their opportunity then I say sign me up. I'm all for a wall) - will be built...and, the Mexicans will be paying for it, one way or another.  There are many ways to bake a pie.
 
So i didn't get the memo - are you on-board with Pelosi and Kamala in re: tearing down any existing walls on the border?
Ana Ross Added Feb 2, 2019 - 5:44am
Facepalm
Sorry this on a tablet
Anyway develop marshal plan for Latin America. You probably think this is too expensive but ir is the reason we have  stable trading partners in Europe.The original idea for Germany after ww2 was to deindustrialize it and force it into an
Ana Ross Added Feb 2, 2019 - 5:51am
Agrarian economy. Germany and the Us are much better off because of the investment we made. If we cant see far enough ahead to do that we should at least quit meddling in the affairs in latin america which is what drives them north in the first place. Since 1900 the US has overthrown 41 governments in  latin America and exactly never has any good come of it. 200000 dead in guatemala alone tens of thousands more dead in el salvador, chile columbia every where that America has destabilized has wreaked havoc and here we go again in Venezuela. This a problem that both parties are guilty of and if we want to stop the flow of refugees we should quit making  many of them.
Ana Ross Added Feb 2, 2019 - 6:00am
Facepalm your idea to tax the remittances of mexicans is kind of sick. Trump just passed a tax cut for the wealthiest people in the country including himself and now you want to tax the poorest people trying to send a few dollars home to feed their kids? Thats about as republican an idea as Ive ever heard.  Maybe we should just force Mexico to buy Cocaine from the CIA to pay for the wall. It worked for britain when it needed to balance payments with China.
FacePalm Added Feb 2, 2019 - 6:59am
Additional info has come in in re: the emergency powers the president may exercise.
A retired general MacGregor(on Carlson), as well as the Trump attorney spokesman regularly appearing on Fox news, Gregory Jarrett(on Hannity last night), both say that there was an Act passed in '76 which grants the president virtually unlimited power during any declared emergency; since that time, 58 of them have been put in place, and 31 are still active.
 
In addition to that, 6 years later, in '82, Congress ALSO authorized the president to build anything needful using the military w/o getting Congressional approval.  Ever hear of the Corps of Engineers?  They - and many other military - been employed securing the borders of MANY foreign countries, so they're well-aware of exactly how to do it HERE, where it's needed.
 
So they(Congress) have only themselves to blame when the President acts to build the wall.
John Minehan Added Feb 2, 2019 - 7:47am
The National Emergencies Act of 1976 (50 USC Section 1801 et seq.).
John Minehan Added Feb 2, 2019 - 7:48am
Same issue applies, how is it an emergency now?  I suspect that will result in years of litigation.
FacePalm Added Feb 2, 2019 - 2:12pm
John-
i very much doubt that "years" of litigation will be involved; as stated earlier, if he acts to declare an emergency, and any judge in any court claims the power to forestall that action(like the leftist 9th Cir.), it will get an expedited appeal to SCOTUS, which will rule in favor of the law as it is, which is very clear.
 
Ana-
It's certainly not "my" idea to tax remittances from Mexican immigrants here to their families still in Mexico, but it's certainly an option.
 
The law doesn't really care about your feelings.
 
And you're still avoiding direct answers to direct questions.
Jim Stoner Added Feb 3, 2019 - 12:28am
Ryan,  You are a good example of why men who profess excessive Christianity should not vote.  I can't stop you, but if you continue to espouse ridiculous notions, the amount of damage you can do will be limited. 
Jim Stoner Added Feb 3, 2019 - 12:32am
FP,  What I have heard is that Trump can order around the Corps of Engineers but the monetary limits come from Congressional appropriations.  The amount I heard he could spend for it (a wall built by fiat under emergency) is $800 million. 
 
One way through this eddying whirlpool (note:  it sucks) would be for Congress to appropriate the $800 million on the condition Trump doesn't declare an emergency to build the wall.  The result would be the same without all the bickering. 
Ana Ross Added Feb 3, 2019 - 4:49am
Facepalm
You are making a strawman argument. No one is saying that all walls should be taken down or that everyone is welcome here.  This is just a rhetorical device on your part.  What Pelosi thinks is for her to decide. I wont speak for her. 
 Then its probably not right to call him Dohbama.  I have a lot of criticism of his years in office myself but I'll make a deal and promise to call him only Trump as is fitting for the president of the United States if you'll go with Obama.  Its no big deal but if we can be a little more respectful towards our presidents like they used to have before Nixon it might make communication a little easier.  I've got to tell you though I think you are much more partisan and closed minded than I am.  heres why.
First  I understand why Trump got elected president.  It was because he spoke to issues that Hillary never mentioned. He lied when he did that but so did Obama. So I have no beef about Russian collusion, if there was any the investigation will come out soon. The suppression of black votes was infinitely more problematic than that  and Hillary has still said almost nothing about that.  The Republicans are mainly responsible for that but Democrats have let it go for too long to be innocent.  Its a problem that parties are guilty of.
 
second I knew he was lying about bringing manufacturing back.  Thats not going to happen without the uber wealthy being on board and thats a nonstarter, but I was am all for better relations with the Russians and I give him credit for saying that.  I give him credit for telling Jeb Bush that his brother didnt keep us safe because we were attacked on his watch.  I was happy when he said he would pull out of Syria but he has since walked that back and I doubt he'll follow through.  So I give him credit where its due.  You have nothing but contempt for Obama and thats a problem for you.  I have some real problems with his policies.  He like Bill Clinton betrayed his base once he got in office and never intended to do much of what he said he would do. So I have genuine criticisms of his time in office and I bring them up whenever I hear him praised for things he didnt do.  I also give him credit for the things he did well.  He was a great ambassador for the USA . Being African American gave us some leverage when civil rights issues were brought up.  He is intelligent respectful and well spoken and that was good for our image worldwide after Bush jr.  He was given a financial nightmare by his predecessor and did a pretty good job keeping the economy stable after the worst recession since the great depression.  The fact that you cant acknowledge this again is a problem for you.  I think a lot on the right have become irrational in assessing the our times.
 
Your point about medicare for all is driven by pure propaganda.  You havent really done any of the work to understand the issue.  Heres how I know.  Medicare for all is estimated to cost 32 trillion over the next 10 years according to  a study by the Koch brothers .  3.2 trillion is the cost per year.  Knowing that you have gotten your figures wrong by a factor of ten it is probably going to be a waste of time to tell you that the same study that gave that figure of 3.2 trillion a year also estimated that if we do nothing the cost after 10 years will be 34 trillion dollars.  These arent my numbers these are the numbers from the study that you are using to come up with 3.2 trillion a year. But they are buried in there and not widely publicized because the it isnt good for the insurance business.
 Not only will it save us collectively 2 trillion dollars but chances are good that every worker would see a rise in his wages that would far exceed any rise he might have in his taxes. This is because our employers are required to pay us part of our wages by  buying health insurance for us.  Without this requirement that portion would be paid to us in cash.  And our employers would have lower administrative costs by being relieved of a burden not imposed by the governments of other countries making them more competitive on the world market. Our medical costs would immediately go down because we could negotiate in bulk with caregivers for drugs equipment and care.  Our medical facilities could lower their admin costs too.   american  healthcare facilities spend around 30% of their money on administration, twice that of Canada.
 
Take another idea you are misinformed on.  America could offer free education at all its state colleges for $62 billion dollars. How much is that?  That is 7 billion dollars less than the 69 billion dollars that we currently spend on financial aid in this country. And we could virtua
John Minehan Added Feb 3, 2019 - 6:47am
"i very much doubt that "years" of litigation will be involved; as stated earlier, if he acts to declare an emergency, and any judge in any court claims the power to forestall that action(like the leftist 9th Cir.), it will get an expedited appeal to SCOTUS, which will rule in favor of the law as it is, which is very clear."
 
Nonsense.
 
The GOP controlled congress from the time Pres. Trump took office in 2017 and this was not an "emergency" then.  As John Adams said when he defended the British troops involved in the Boston Massacre, "Facts are stubborn things." 
FacePalm Added Feb 3, 2019 - 7:07am
Ana-
You are making a strawman argument. No one is saying that all walls should be taken down or that everyone is welcome here.
"Walls are immoral."  Nancy Pelosi, supporter of sanctuary cities.
i just got an email today which showed Pelosi's beautiful home in SF, surrounded by what appears to be at least a 10' tall wall.  2724 Pacific Avenue was the address.  It's not a "strawman" to quote someone in a "leadership" position who's an idiot, and call her out on her declarations.
 
So apparently, walls are only "immoral" if they keep illegal immigrants from flooding the country and being a danger to everyone who has NOT built walls around their OWN property...
 
Of the many millions of jobs which are being filled in America, last i heard, 500k+ of them were in manufacturing, so the characterization of the fraud known as "D'ohBama" is perfectly apropos.  i frankly love it when the clip of him saying "Those jobs are not coming back; what's he gonna do, wave a magic wand?" is played.
 
It's a perfect "D'oh!" moment.
 
Medicare for all is estimated to cost 32 trillion over the next 10 years according to  a study by the Koch brothers .  3.2 trillion is the cost per year.
That's what YOU wrote.
Here's what i wrote:
"Projected costs are 3.2 trillion per year over the next ten years, approximately everything the USG gets from all sources of revenue."
 
What is the difference between what you wrote as fact and what i wrote as fact?  Can you say "D'Oh!"?
 
But you've kinda lost me; are you favoring the kind of wall you said you favored to start your article, now, or not?
Ward Tipton Added Feb 3, 2019 - 8:34am
"Ever hear of the Corps of Engineers?  They - and many other military - been employed securing the borders of MANY foreign countries, so they're well-aware of exactly how to do it HERE, where it's needed."
 
They are also responsible for all of the dykes along the Mississippi including those in New Orleans ... many of which up and down the great river were built on lands obtained through the utilization of eminent domain. Perhaps eminent domain should be restricted to stealing private land to hand it over to developers who make political campaign contributions with their profits? 
 
Was this same level of objection to the wall around in 2013 when each and every one of the democrat senators voted for 350 miles of wall when they are now so vehemently opposed to more than a hundred miles less wall? Or is it only because it is being requested by a republican which makes it so evil now? 
Ana Ross Added Feb 3, 2019 - 11:48am
Facepalm
  D'oh  my mistake I misattributed something to you.  This doesnt address my larger point.  That figures you are referencing come from a report that actually shows that medicare for all will cost 2 trillion dollars less than if we do nothing.  A fact conveniently ignored by its opponents. Also you fundamentally misread Obama.  First the trend of bringing manufacturing jobs back began in 2010 under Obama. Second Obama wasnt wrong.  Those jobs began an exodus under Reagan in 1980 and what has come back was a trickle compared to what left. We've lost more than 6 million manufacturing jobs and those will never come back despite what Trump promised.
 
manufacturing-jobs-arent-coming-back
 
Also let me fess up regarding my article.  It was intended as a joke.  There is a logical fallacy known as "if by Whiskey" that comes from a hilarious speech given by a politician in the 1930's.
If-by-whiskey
My article is just a parody of that infamous address and frankly I expected to be called on it.  I tried to make it as over the top as I could while taking absolutely no stand on the issue whatsoever. I failed I suppose because the issue isnt as simple as prohibition was so no one should feel bad about taking it seriously, its my failure  as a humorist.  I think if you read his speech first then you read mine it will be a lot more funny than on the first read.
FacePalm Added Feb 3, 2019 - 12:52pm
Personally, i think the federal government has zero Constitutional authority to have ANY input into health care at all - i've read the Constitution and Amendments many times, with a Black's 6th Edition handy to define terms i was unfamiliar with, and can find no such authorization anywhere.  The phrase "general welfare" was meant to apply to the STATES, not the People, because the people are not parties to the Constitution.  Apparently, SCOTUS has "interpreted" (unconstitutionally, as it happens) otherwise.  i have several citations of the Founders to buttress this point, which i'll supply, if asked.
 
Thanks for explaining about your initial inspiration as a take-off on the prohibition issue.  i haven't watched/read what's at your link, yet, but still think that the Wall will be built...probably by the US military, and they'll be glad to do it.  Probably get awards and bonuses, too, well-deserved ones.
 
Awhile back, i believe i referred to an article which said that over the last 4 years, the Pentagon had returned an average of a bit over 5 billion per year to the US Treasury, and that was another potential source of funds the President could tap (though i have no idea of the legalities of such a thing, but if previous legislation in re: "emergency" is any guide, he can seize and use virtually ANYthing; again, i can provide a citation in support of this notion, too, if interested).
 
But one way or another, the wall will be built.  Maybe demonstrators can tear down Pelosi's walls since they're apparently so "anti-American" to her, as she says.
 
Thanks for having the honesty to admit to misquoting me; this is a rare quality around here, and i appreciate it.
 
The manufacturing jobs ARE coming back, but it's quite likely that you're correct insofar as restoring their numbers anywhere close to when America reached it's peak of manufacturing prowess.   But with any new invention or creation, multiple plants could spring up virtually overnight, assuming a market exists for whatever "new thing" is developed.  One never knows the future precisely, even when standing on railroad tracks in front of an oncoming 60mph train.
Dino Manalis Added Feb 3, 2019 - 1:23pm
 It's tighter border security to stem all kinds of illicit trafficking, but the wall; barrier; or fence will remain open to commerce or other legal travelers, so individuals and vehicles have to be inspected at the border.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Feb 3, 2019 - 7:35pm
The wall will cost 5+ billion, it will save however 500+ billion.  Someone on the interwebs said that, I'm sure its exaggerated. But I'm pretty sure we'll get our money's worth.  The decision should be made on what is best for America and for some reason, main stream media and the Democrats seem to think this decision should be based on what is best for the illegal alien which is complete nonsense.  
Surfing Another Apocalypse Added Feb 3, 2019 - 7:39pm
As long as someone on the other side offers to pay you 10 times your current wage, a "wall", no matter how impenetrable you make it will be useless. Which is why the entire issue is just another social engineering distraction.  If the POTUS really wanted to stop illegal immigration he or she would simply sign an executive order for all agencies of government to enforce labor laws and pursue and prosecute all EMPLOYERS who illegally employ illegals, thus the problem would be solved immediately and without expense.  Also, the shit job wages would rise dramatically solving another serious problem. As far as drugs, meth is cooked domestically without risking border crossing and cocaine and opium are flown in on military transports from Afganistan and Columbia thanks to our men in uniform.  So, simply enforce the labor laws which are perfectly enforcable and eliminate drug prohibition laws which can not be enforced and corrupt our society and civil servants.  Then and only then will a barrier on the southern border be effective. Otherwise you would just be puting the cart in front of the horse.
Cullen Kehoe Added Feb 3, 2019 - 7:53pm
The era of open immigration (for the healthy) from Europe into the U.S. ended in 1924, nearly a century ago. The words on the Statue of Liberty were a gift from France and applied to that era. 
 
America never promised the world anything. 
Leroy Added Feb 3, 2019 - 8:28pm
Ana, are you saying that anyone who wants to come to the US should be allowed to come?  And, if they are in need, the US taxpayer should provide assistance?  Or, are you saying that those who can follow the process should do so?  Those that are poor, unskilled, and/or uneducated should be welcomed with open arms, even if they are a burden on the taxpayer?
 
I'm rather offended by these people who waltz across the border and demand welfare.  I followed the legal process, and, let me tell you, it was a pain in the arse as well as expensive.  I had to pledge that my then-fiancee and later wife would never become a burden on the American taxpayer.  If she became a ward of the government, the government was coming after me.  My wife had to go through intense interviews and medical exams and get the required vaccinations--twice.  I don't think it is too much of a burden to require them to enter at a point of entry, make their claim, leave, and wait for a ruling outside the country.  At the very least, they should apply for asylum at the first country of entry and be rejected before applying in the US. 
 
We have the right to know who is entering our country and for what purposes.  The idea of letting anyone into the country makes about as much sense as letting anyone vote without any sort of ID.
Allen William Added Feb 4, 2019 - 4:36am
Ana, well prepared and thought out piece.  I fully support you on the first part of reasons to support a wall.  However, I must agree with George N Romey to some extent that these "huddling masses yearning to breathe free" are not the same ones as they used to be back when the Irish, Italians amd others immigrated here from Europe long ago.  First there was ONE single port of entry, and these people had working skills, spoke the language and had the willingness to integrate in to our society.  I'm sure many of the Spanish people from the south are coming here to do as the Irish and Italians did, but in my opinion, most are not.  They just want to get away from a bad situation (which I can understand) but at a great cost to us and most times not through proper channels and procedures.  ....or smuggle drugs and weapons that a wall would catch or curtail.
 
I think a physical wall or barrier of somekind is needed. You can still come to the the United States and seek asylum and all that with a wall.  Just follow the rules, meet the requirements and wait your turn.
Ward Tipton Added Feb 4, 2019 - 5:16am
"Democrats seem to think this decision should be based on what is best for the illegal alien which is complete nonsense. "
 
I do not agree. If they were so concerned about the illegal aliens, they would want the wall as well. As it is, statistics indicate that as many as eight out of ten people entering the country illegally will be subjected to abuses including being used as a witting or unwitting drug mule, beating, robbery, rape and even murder in some cases. Most of these numbers could be greatly reduced with the introduction of a viable wall and a secure border. 
 
Mind you, even this fails to address the concern for our children as formerly eradicate and often mutated strains of diseases that were eradicated in this nation are reintroduced into a new population with very limited resistance to said diseases. 
 
It is political kabuki theater. The same democrat senators who are opposed to the wall now voted lock, stock and barrel for more than a hundred miles more of wall back in 2013 ... at least every dem senator in office in 2013 did. 
Don in Odessa Added Feb 4, 2019 - 5:18am
I think you summed it up nicely Ana. Too bad so many think Trump is anti immigration. It's all about being able to choose those we grant the privilege of becoming an American citizen. Trump is a lousy orator, so it's very easy to twist what he says into something he didn't mean. Personally, I don't care about race or culture. If you can support yourself and your family, don't have a criminal record,don't have a communicable disease, in my mind you are welcome. However, by the same token, those who enter this country illegally are by definition criminals. They are not welcome. They prove their character right from the start.
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Feb 4, 2019 - 9:58am
Surfing Another Apocalypse  - You didn't bring health, food and lodging for illegal aliens.  I have two sisters who are both nurses who complain about it all the time how these illegals get all this free health care that the rest of us have to pay for. If you put up a wall and stopped half of them from coming over, the savings would be tremendous 
Ana Ross Added Feb 8, 2019 - 3:36am
Leroy
The question is whether they are a burden to America which is not at all certain. On the federal level they contribute billions of dollars a year to social security despite not having an expectation to receive benefits. So on this side they are net contributors without question. The only question is on the side of local government. The main burden is on local schools where they educate their children. They seem to be a draw  on this side of things at first.  Studies show however that  by he second generation they are a net plus. Its hard enough to draw welfare if you are a citizen so this idea that they come here to get the tiny amount offered here is just a myth. By far the majority of them come to work and send money home. They live 5 to a room in boarding houses keep to themselves work all that they can to send money home. They commit less crime than the native population. If I were given the choice  of living in poverty in latin america or going north to make money to send my children to school I would be on my way in a heartbeat whatever the risk and I think most people here would do the same. This why I dont understand the demonization of some of the poorest people in the world. You dont want open boarder I understand but a civilized people would deal with undocumented immigrants in a way that shows compassion and dignity to them. That doesnt take their children from their mothers arms that does not destroy water in the desert so they die of thirst. It takes some kind of sickness to treat others this way. If We would begin to treat them with some measure of dignity instead of as criminals to be locked up for the temerity of wanting a better life for their kids Id be on board for better security.
 
I have said this many times before.  The best use of our resources in terms of stopping immigrant traffick north is a Marshal Plan for Latin America. If we would contribute 25billion and get the eu to contribute the same to create economic opportunity  the poor to make a better life for themselves  in their home countries that would stop illegal immigration 100 times better than a wall. Bu if we did this who would work in the sweatshops for a dollar a day? By any objective measure we owe them anyway.
Ward Tipton Added Feb 8, 2019 - 3:43am
"On the federal level they contribute billions of dollars a year to social security despite not having an expectation to receive benefits."
 
Gee, maybe you could talk to the IRS and explain to them that I do not owe for all of the years some illegal alien has been using my SSN and claiming zero exemptions, EIC and a host of other benefits apparently. Strange, but during the year, the IRS cannot tell me I am working in Florida because it is a violation of my privacy. However, when they want me to pay for the money they have given out, privacy suddenly is no longer an issue. 
 
While you are at it, maybe you can explain to the US government that I am really me, here in the Philippines and whoever this is in the US is not me ... and maybe I can regain my legal fiction and get on with my life again? 
Ana Ross Added Feb 8, 2019 - 6:31am
Ward
Sorry I cant do any of that but you do have my deepest sympathy which if you take to any diner with $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Dont forget to tip your waitress.
Ana Ross Added Feb 8, 2019 - 6:42am
Ward
In any case I doubt its an illegal alien using your ssi number. The IRS always gives a refund with no deductions till about$30,000 a year. No illegal makes that kind of money $15.00 an hour. The employer would just hire an american for that wage.  
Ward Tipton Added Feb 8, 2019 - 6:44am
I would gladly pay a buck and a half for a cup of coffee ... if I had a buck and a half. 
 
I have not legally existed since 2012 ... and discovered this while traveling in the third world. It has been quite the experience ... but whoever I am in Florida, seems to be doing quite well based on how much the IRS wanted me to pay before denying I was me ... then again, maybe I should be grateful if nothing else, that they no longer come to me seeking payment? 
 
What a long strange trip it's been. 
Ward Tipton Added Feb 8, 2019 - 6:54am
"In any case I doubt its an illegal alien using your ssi number. The IRS always gives a refund with no deductions till about$30,000 a year. No illegal makes that kind of money $15.00 an hour. The employer would just hire an american for that wage.  "
 
Well that was the issue to begin with. They kept getting EIC and claiming zero dependents ... while I was expected to pay. Seven years running the IRS swore to me that they had it all sorted out. 
Ward Tipton Added Feb 8, 2019 - 6:54am
That should be zero deductions, not zero dependents. 
Ana Ross Added Feb 10, 2019 - 4:58am
Ward
I do not agree. If they were so concerned about the illegal aliens, they would want the wall as well. As it is, statistics indicate that as many as eight out of ten people entering the country illegally will be subjected to abuses including being used as a witting or unwitting drug mule, beating, robbery, rape and even murder in some cases. Most of these numbers could be greatly reduced with the introduction of a viable wall and a secure border. 
 
 Its too bad Trump didnt hire you instead of Sarah Sanders. He might have his wall by now!
 
The same democrat senators who are opposed to the wall now voted lock, stock and barrel for more than a hundred miles more of wall back in 2013 ... at least every dem senator in office in 2013 did. 
 
And every one of the 32 nay votes were republicans.
Ana Ross Added Feb 10, 2019 - 5:00am
Ward
on the other hand if you put your case for a wall to him he might think it was welfare for illegals and reject it.
Ward Tipton Added Feb 12, 2019 - 5:53am
Hahahahahahahaha I could see any politicians taking that route ... after all, they were for it before they were against it ... and since it has not yet passed, we cannot know what is in it ... loves me some political expediency in the mawnin' ... Lawsy yes!!!