So now people who don't believe a border wall is a solution to various problems along the border equals "not wanting to support our country?" Seriously?
Building a wall doesn't help end Mexico's drug cartel violence problem. The illegal immigrants are seldom the ones causing the violence in Mexico. We know this because of the low crime rates even amongst those that have illegally immigrated to this nation. So yes, Mexico does have a violence problem. No, that problem won't be helped by building a wall. Don't forget the video from Vicente Fox showing that the plans to beat the expensive wall would be a ladder. That's all it takes to get over the wall. Yes, building a wall would waste time and tax payer dollars on other programs that might actually stand a better chance of helping stop the drug cartels in Mexico. Not supporting the building of a wall is not that same as not supporting the United States.
My point exactly: criticism isn't anything but criticism. Wow. I'm stunned. Juan Valdez, I once thought that you were one of the more reasonable and logical posters here. Nice strawman.
What? Criticism is a way to learn from bad ideas, and weed bad ideas out before they come to fruition. Criticism can be extremely beneficial.
Ignoring criticism isn't anything but ignoring criticism. Ignoring very valid criticism is being stupid. Statement that if you don't support a wall, you don't support the country is beyond stupid, and reaches Trump level of operation. I have long concluded that Rojo alternate between being normal and mentally ill.
i agree...trump and his supporters are unacceptable. not wanting a wall isnt supporting trump...and only authoritarian bootlickers would equate support of trump with support of america.
Juan understands the issue. As to NAFTA....Texas and the South, where there aren't unions, have done fantastic under NAFTA. America's manufacturing shifted from the Rust Belt to the South and SE where there are no unions. It's funny.... the GOP has been anti union and got NAFTA passed... but now....
it think it's the opposite for those bad nature hambres like removing the flooding order. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/346629-trump-to-roll-back-obama-era-flooding-order
We live in a post-data world - apparently. Homicides and murders on the rise in the US: fact. Opioid drug use and overdose on the rise: fact. Border and immigration enforcement has allowed over six million illegal immigrants into the US: fact. Violence in Mexico is at 20 year highs: fact. Mexico's president once vowed to remove the military from Mexico's cartel war: fact. There is, at this point, no constructive criticism. The argument for not having a wall built (or increasing border security and immigration enforcement) is that it won't make any difference, and the explanation for why it won't make any difference is absent. Therefore, when someone says that the wall is "a good idea", and you have someone else replying with "no it isn't", then the replying individual is actually participating in contradiction, not criticism. Criticism isn't just saying "no it isn't".
Posting a bunch of facts without showing any relation at all let alone a causal relationship is meaningless. Furthermore, a wall along the border would help fix zero of the problems you mentioned.
I am equally surprised that I get disagreement on a capitalist idea on trade that I didn't think was at all controversial. Now, you referenced NAFTA, which I know Trump has told you is a bad deal (and how are you or I to know anyway? All we have are the arguments from 'authorities' on the subject). But, here I was just saying we should want Mexico to prosper from trade, in general. Of course, we also want the USA to prosper from trade (I thought it was too obvious to be explicit about). You seem to imply you want Mexico to be poor, apparently because you think they've enriched themselves too much with NAFTA in the past, and moreover (again) implying you think trades are a zero-sum game. In my view, which I think is pretty orthodox, prosperous countries make better trade partners. They can buy more stuff. But this isn't about trade in itself. We want a good trade deal so the US can prosper but we also want Mexico to have a healthy economy, a stable government, and a strong rule of law so that they can defeat the drug cartels and minimize the drug violence. That is the real way to protect American citizens from the cartels. But Trump policies on immigration and border control (not even speaking here of renegotiating NAFTA because a renegotiated deal can still be good for both parties; though I think a no-deal would hurt us both) and the combative stance he's taken with the country isn't doing anything good to strengthen Mexico's fight against cartels.
but isn't the onus on you to prove that the wall will make a difference, as well? you've not done any of that. You posted a bunch of very loosely related facts and took for granted that they have a causal relationship with one another. That's not good enough.
Looking at, and justifying, the cost-benefit of a border wall is what would make it a viable plan, not "it will keep out some illegals, therefore, it is good." Is the number of people who enter the county illegally through the Mexican border a large enough percentage of the overall number of illegal immigrants here that it would justify spending billions of dollars on construction and upkeep of the wall? Is there a large correlation between illegal immigrants who came into the country through the Mexican border and those who commit violent crimes? It needs to be shown that it would be an actual deterrent to illegal immigration and violent crime; however, listing off cherry-picked facts that fit your viewpoint isn't doing that at all.
