Comment Of The Day: “The Infuriating, Incompetent, Border Wall Debate”

Zoe Brain weighs in with a typical (for her) carefully researched and detailed comment—two, actually, that function as one— regarding border walls as a matter of science and practicality, an obviously deserving Comment of the Day. Even if Zoe’s quoted experts were 100% correct on a factual basis, and they might be, it does not necessarily mean that a wall/fence/some kind of barrier would not have value. I particularly object to this statement from the first of the experts:

The whole situation needs to be addressed, and building a wall is a feel-good solution that is being pushed more because it pisses off Democrats than because it is a practical solution.

That’s anti-Trump bias, flat-out and undeniable, and untrue. President Trump did not propose a wall while running for President to piss off Democrats. He obviously believes a wall is necessary, and if Democrats showed that they would support a wall, he would not suddenly declare that he didn’t want a wall. At this point, he wants a wall because he promised one, and because he believes that he must fulfill that promise to keep faith with the people who elected him. There is no question, however, that the reverse is true. Democrats are willing to cause all sorts of collateral damage to deny the President a political victory and to signal to their open-borders base that they really don’t want the flow of illegals into the U.S. to stop. They could trace DACA for the wall, which would be effective, pragmatic, traditional politics. Trump would agree to that. A biased statement like the above makes me doubt the starting point of any analysis.

I also object to what follows this statement,  a random list of alternative ways to spend the same amount of money. Playing that game with 5 billion dollars is intellectually dishonest, because one could easily find that amount by cutting all sorts of wasteful expenditures. NPR and PBS cost about a a half billion dollars, for example, and there is no excuse whatsoever for taxpayers to pay for commercial television and radio. It also assumes that it will be any easier getting more practical or realistic measures funded, because, again, Democrats only talk about “comprehensive immigration reform” so people can imagine whatever they want. The last time they seriously discussed stemming illegal immigration, they were talking about fences and walls. What that party has been promoting since is a “path to citizenship” for anyone who illegally enters or stays in the country and who doesn’t break other laws, and sometimes even for the ones who do. This is a message has the effect of increasing illegal immigrants, of course. 

It doesn’t take a genius, an expert, an engineering degree or a lot of thought to conclude that there is a lot wrong with a border wall as long as the one proposed. However, at this point, a giant sign in multiple languages that reads, “To those who are tempted to enter the United States without following the appropriate procedures and laws, STAY OUT. You are not welcome. Your children are not welcome. We mean it.” The Government of the United States of America.

Sending that message alone is worth 5 billion dollars.

Finally, this statement (By Zoe’s Expert 1) is fatuous and dishonest:

At the same time, set up a program to accept people as economic refugees under temporary visas contingent on locating a job and keeping out of trouble. Spend some time on outreach in Central and South America to counteract rumors and misinformation about immigration to the United States. This comes back to the point about simplifying the immigration system. If you can’t explain it to a Guatemalan peasant, then saying “obey the law” is meaningless because he cannot understand the law. For that matter, you can’t understand immigration law. Immigration lawyers don’t understand immigration law. The f*cking INS doesn’t understand immigration law – ask any immigrant.

Illegal immigrants can understand THIS much: There are procedures and laws governing who is eligible to enter the United States, and if you are tying to storm the border, sneak across the border, get into the country on false pretenses and scatter, or get a temporary visa and then violate it, you’re breaking the law. I don’t think that’s too hard to “understand.”

Here is Zoe Brain’s Comment of the Day on the post, The Infuriating, Incompetent, Border Wall Debate:

From a friend of mine, until recently a sergeant of combat engineers in the US Army:

In answer to the statement that while the wall is flawed, this person hasn’t heard any better ideas:

It’s really hard to discuss costs and benefits without at least a starting point, and most of the numbers seem to be picked out of the air by one side or another. But even the design stage is going to cost a small fortune (by real world standards, a trivial sum by government standards) and I’d like to see at least a general idea of what we want this wall to do and be. If it is being presented as a wall and nothing but a wall, I don’t need to spend billions on a detailed design stage to know it won’t work. Details of the drainage or what type of steel we use for the slats are not going to change that reality.

I have said it a hundred times. Immigration is a complex topic. No single solution is going to make a meaningful long-term impact. Immigration reform that cleans up the system has to be included. The current immigration system is so broken that native-speakers of English from a friendly country with an engineering degree can spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers and STILL can’t get straight answers. The countries these people are leaving are such cesspools that even crossing minefields would be better than staying – and we helped make them that way.

The whole situation needs to be addressed, and building a wall is a feel-good solution that is being pushed more because it pisses off Democrats than because it is a practical solution. The money the Administration is talking about would be better spent expanding the judicial system so that we can get people their hearings and decide whether to admit or deport them in less time, because just reducing the time we keep detainees in holding facilities would save huge amounts of money. Expanding the number of agents on the Border and providing them better ISR assets. Put some teeth into eVerify – and start sending the people who OWN the companies to actual prison for hiring illegals, not just slapping on some trivial fine for the corporation. Hell, I’m down with charging coyotes with Murder One if we can show anyone died on the trip, and human trafficking regardless of whether they did or not. Treat anyone carrying a firearm across the border as an illegal combatant taken under arms, and shoot them. Expand penalties for drug smuggling and at the same time decriminalize marijuana at the Federal level to take a massive bite out of their revenue stream.

At the same time, set up a program to accept people as economic refugees under temporary visas contingent on locating a job and keeping out of trouble. Spend some time on outreach in Central and South America to counteract rumors and misinformation about immigration to the United States. This comes back to the point about simplifying the immigration system. If you can’t explain it to a Guatemalan peasant, then saying “obey the law” is meaningless because he cannot understand the law. For that matter, you can’t understand immigration law. Immigration lawyers don’t understand immigration law. The f*cking INS doesn’t understand immigration law – ask any immigrant.

I’m sorry I can’t fit this all into a tweet, and thus it will never gain any momentum, but complex sociocultural phenomena are not amenable to simple solutions unless they are nuclear-bomb level of drastic [proportions].

From the same guy, quoting Amy Patrick, a professional engineer.

Walls… Walls alone mean nothing. I am Not That Kind Of Engineer.

I’m the kind of engineer that did mobility and counter-mobility for 20 years, and I could get through or over an unmanned wall with a minimal investment in equipment. Manning the mile castles is necessary to ensure that someone like me with more desperation or fewer ethical constraints doesn’t punch holes in it – and none of the proposals floated make provision for mile castles and expansion of manning to defend it.

The comparison to the Hungarian border wall is incomplete because we are talking less than 300 miles of border, manned by the majority of the Hungarian Army at the height of their crisis. Also funded by 4 countries. We don’t really have the infrastructure to support hundreds of thousands of people deployed along the border. Do the math on manning requirements. Please.

However, for the wall qua the wall, see below discussion and if you have valid rebuttals, please post. I am not qualified to really analyze a lot of what she says.

Amy Patrick:

“Howdy.”

“To recap: I’m a licensed structural and civil engineer with a MS in structural engineering from the top program in the nation and over a decade of experience on high-performance projects, and particularly of cleaning up design disasters where the factors weren’t properly accounted for, and I’m an adjunct professor of structural analysis and design at UH-Downtown. I have previously been deposed as an expert witness in matters regarding proper construction of walls and the various factors associated therein, and my testimony has passed Daubert.

“Am I a wall expert? I am. I am literally a court-accepted expert on walls.

“Structurally and civil engineering-wise, the border wall is not a feasible project. Trump did not hire engineers to design the thing. He solicited bids from contractors, not engineers. This means it’s not been designed by professionals. It’s a disaster of numerous types waiting to happen.

“What disasters? Off the top of my head…
1) It will mess with our ability to drain land in flash flooding. Anything impeding the ability of water to get where it needs to go (doesn’t matter if there are holes in the wall or whatever) is going to dramatically increase the risk of flooding.
2) Messes with all kind of stuff ecologically. For all other projects, we have to do an Environmental Site Assessment, which is arduous. They’re either planning to circumvent all this, or they haven’t accounted for it yet, because that’s part of the design process, and this thing hasn’t been designed.
3) The prototypes they came up with are nearly impossible to build or don’t actually do the job. This article explains more:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.engineering.com/amp/17599.html

And so on.

“The estimates provided for the cost are arrived at unreasonably. You can look for yourself at the two-year-old estimate that you see everyone citing.
…It does not account for rework, complexities beyond the prototype design, factors to prevent flood and environmental hazard creation, engineering redesign… It’s going to be higher than $50bn. The contractors will hit the government with near CONSTANT change orders. “Cost overrun” will be the name of the game. It will not be completed in Trump’s lifetime.

“I’m a structural forensicist, which means I’m called in when things go wrong. This is a project that WILL go wrong. When projects go wrong, the original estimates are just *obliterated*. And when that happens, good luck getting it fixed, because there aren’t that many forensicists out there to right the ship, particularly not that are willing to work on a border wall project— a large quotient of us are immigrants, and besides, we can’t afford to bid on jobs that are this political. We’re small firms, and we’re already busy, and we don’t gamble our reputations on political footballs. So you’d end up with a revolving door of contractors making a giant, uncoordinated muddle of things, and it’d generally be a mess. Good money after bad. The GAO agrees with me.

“And it won’t be effective. I could, right now, purchase a 32 foot extension ladder and weld a cheap custom saddle for the top of the proposed wall so that I can get over it. I don’t know who they talked to about the wall design and its efficacy, but it sure as heck wasn’t anybody with any engineering imagination.

“Another thing: we are not far from the day where inexpensive drones will be able to pick up and carry someone. This will happen in the next ten years, and it’s folly to think that the coyotes who ferry people over the border won’t purchase or create them. They’re low enough, quiet enough, and small enough to quickly zip people over any wall we could build undetected with our current monitoring setup.

“Let’s have border security, by all means, but let’s be smart about it. This is not smart. It’s not effective. It’s NOT cheap. The returns will be diminishing as technology advances, too. This is a ridiculous idea that will never be successfully executed and, as such, would be a monumental waste of money.”

39 Comments

Filed under Citizenship, Comment of the Day, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics

39 responses to “Comment Of The Day: “The Infuriating, Incompetent, Border Wall Debate”

  1. I do know about walls, from a study of history, including military history.

    As a single line, operated as a passive defence, they fail.

    As part of a complex, and actively operated, they succeed. They usually do this by channelling movement onto a smaller, more manageable set of areas where other means are used – actively (think tank traps funnelling onto guns). And, of course, they have several layers when done properly, with the gaps not lined up. That last means that getting through needs one or more long lateral traverses, which can more easily be detected and caught in the flank than can a simple dash. (All this is done with regard to topography of course, which counters objections about floods etc.; you just don’t have the solid bits there.)

    Once you have a defence in depth, the wall merely anchors it and serves as a tool to keep the defence in depth operating. One common method in history was to maintain a depopulated zone a day’s travel wide, maybe one such zone within and without the notional wall. The Korean kingdom had one, and Venice maintained such zones around its naval bases in Crete. Left long enough, those turn into true shatterbelts that leave their footprint on demographics even generations after they stop being kept up. In that sense, Mexico would definitely be paying for the wall; though the wall proper would be on the U.S. side (subject to negotiated variation), there would be a chilling effect on ordinary activity next to it in Mexico as compared with further away from the cordon sanitaire.

    Finally, “work” or “succeed” isn’t usually measured against a criterion as simplistic as “stop anyone getting through”. For instance, the Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall and Offa’s Dyke were there to hinder raiders getting back with loot while a mobile reserve caught up and pinned them with their backs to the wall – much like First World War barbed wire, it was meant to contain and funnel, not to stop as such. The first two of those were also chosen so as to split tribes, making it harder for them to attack while their kin were available for retaliation (colonial borders that split tribes, like the Durand Line, were not mistakes made by out of touch civil servants, they served a purpose).

    Oh, and the very similar Pale of Dublin (based on the slightly earlier Pale of Calais) may soon be revived for Ulster, if worse comes to worst over Brexit (the very worst would involve the lads switching tactics back to violence again). These, and Offa’s Dyke, show that the wall need not be a literal one. There are also earthworks, specially sloped ditches as in Iron Age hill forts, ha-has, barbed wire, mine fields, and much more. Think “vallum”.

    • Zoe Brain

      Rather a good historical exposition. Full marks.

      Having a company sized unit every 10 miles or so to monitor such barriers (using drones and fixed cameras) requires around half a million border guards.

      A depopulated zone of 1 day’s travel width from the barrier – say 10 miles either side, though 20 if you’re serious about it – would have certain disadvantages regarding depopulating major American cities. Good luck with the eminent domain bill too, not forgetting the water rights along the Rio Grande.

      I wonder how much just the sequestration of San Diego – 17 miles from Tijuana – would cost?

      • I was very careful to specify travel time rather than distance because that varies with terrain, technology, climate and other things (a league is like that, being the distance between daily camp sites for a burdened army on the march). Ten miles is wrong; it would more often be around 250 miles these days – unless and until suitable obstacles were put in, precisely in order to change the terrain.

        There would be no eminent domain or water rights costs and issues with depopulated zones, not as such, at least judging by history. You just ban certain kinds of human activity there (Venice banned agriculture around its Cretan naval bases); violations can be policed cheaply and effectively enough even with infrequent patrols. That kind of ban leaves all the rights formally in place, merely ineffective for the duration of the restrictions but resuming in full after that (and so, never seized – but see Crichel Down for a failure of proper handling). That also makes it practical – sometimes – to encroach on others’ territory, because you don’t actually have to take it over in full (a feature that also keeps doing that cost effective). That sort of encroachment is what Korea and Venice did to get their buffer zones.

        And you never would sequester San Diego like that, precisely because you would always respect topography in all this. Most likely, San Diego would be handled as an enclave for the sake of its naval base – just like the Venetian ones. It might or might not be convenient to have and control a narrow access corridor, like West Berlin’s.

        It’s all a bit like clearing the field of fire.

    • dragin_dragon

      And China’s Great Wall worked well until the Mongols figured out that that they could bribe the gate guards.

      • You’ve taken your eye off the ball. That “worked” is the wrong one; it’s just the incidental benefit of stopping undesired individuals or small groups. But the main purpose, that I described, was never harmed by that, and conversely that wall never could – nor was meant to – cope with full blown invasions.

  2. Glenn Logan

    I have said it a hundred times. Immigration is a complex topic. No single solution is going to make a meaningful long-term impact.

    It’s never a good idea to start off a comment with a blatant strawman. The “wall” debate is not, and never has been about immigration — it has always been about illegal immigration. Immigration reform is a left-liberal dodge of the actual problem. There would be no pressing need for any changes in our immigration system if not for our southern border, which is being violated daily by people attempting to enter and stay in our country in violation of US law, knowingly.

    The countries these people are leaving are such cesspools that even crossing minefields would be better than staying – and we helped make them that way.

    Bullshit.

    Countries in Africa and other places around the world have it much worse than south and central America. No amount of politically attainable assistance will reduce their difficulties to a level they are prepared to accept, and their willingness to risk their lives to escape, while tragic, is not our problem, and whether or not our policies can be said to have contributed to their plight is facile, risible nonsense and utterly irrelevant.

    Allowing people to freely move into America consume resources intended for its citizens is literally an insane public policy, but that is the net effect of this caterwauling about the plight of the poor border-crossers. This doesn’t even touch the legitimate national security issues raised by such a policy.

    Structurally and civil engineering-wise, the border wall is not a feasible project.

    Again, this is bullshit. Walls do work, and a properly constructed barrier will do none or few of the negative things he claims. His claim of ease of penetration is also specious, since any reasoning person knows any barrier can be circumvented.

    The purpose of a “wall” is not to stop illegal border crossings, but to accomplish several other important things:

    1 Discourage border crossings by making them substantially more difficult and dangerous;

    2 Slow down determined border crossers by forcing them through small breaches, which will allow the authorities to arrive to stop most of them;

    3 Provide a platform for attached technology and improvements to make the barrier more effective;

    4 Provide a policy statement that the United States takes southern border security seriously, and is not literally inviting illegal immigration.

    These are just four things off the top of my head, all very important. This comment is, in my view, a poorly-reasoned effort from a normally intelligent person, designed more to make the perfect the enemy of the good in order to suit a political objective.

    • Countries in Africa and other places around the world have it much worse than south and central America. No amount of politically attainable assistance will reduce their difficulties to a level they are prepared to accept, and their willingness to risk their lives to escape, while tragic, is not our problem, and whether or not our policies can be said to have contributed to their plight is facile, risible nonsense and utterly irrelevant.

      It isd just like the incel movement.

      The incel movement claims that men are entitled to sex with cute girls.

      The illegal alien movement claim that these people are entitled to live uin the United States of America.

      Both are based on entitlement.

  3. It’s never a good idea to start off a comment with a blatant strawman. The “wall” debate is not, and never has been about immigration — it has always been about illegal immigration. Immigration reform is a left-liberal dodge of the actual problem. There would be no pressing need for any changes in our immigration system if not for our southern border, which is being violated daily by people attempting to enter and stay in our country in violation of US law, knowingly.

    The ‘wall debate’ and the rise of Donald Trump do have a relationship to ‘historical nativism’ in the US. At one time, by popular will, there were strong restrictions about who could enter. Meaning, from where, and what culture and ethnicity. This changed. But it can (and should) change back again. The immigration reform of 1965 is showing its fruit.

    The only way to be able to do this is to understand that it is moral and ethical to do so. If you do not fundamentally believe it so, if you cannot explain why, you can have no argument against what is now happening in America demographically. This is the base and origin of most of the social conflict we see every day, and also mounting every day. Again, if you cannot understand and recite the moral and ethical argument to oppose these processes, you are lost.

    And if you are lost, then accept it. Stop complaining!

    There is a will that is now rising — coming into focus — that if the demographic make-up of the US continues as it is, the brown democratic masses will numerically overpower to ‘original demographic’. This is now happening. You see it every day. But you cannot bring your observation out into the open. There is cognitive dissonance.

    All this was foreseen, and quite possibly planned (in a loose sense). Now, it is becoming evident. Weirdly, all the factors of social deviance all operate together. Sexual dysphoria, all the ‘breakdowns’ in morals and ethics, the shattering of the ‘real identity’ of America and Americans. The weakening of the ‘traditional family’. An economic system undergirded with ‘multiculturalism’. A state apparatus that has every interest in seeing all this continue.

    You will either see it, or you will deny it.

    White liberals and their so-called white conservative opponents show themselves incapable of seeing the problem in the full sense.

    The classic white liberal ’embraces’ the new reality (like Joe Biden in his ‘unending waves of immigration’ speech). The conservative has some issues but is terrified to say it out loud. (Except perhaps for someone like Buchanan who, as a result, is shunned). Amazing! His fear overpowers his good sense. He serves the liberal will.

    The Wall Debate therefore has as its backdrop the demographic issue.

    The issue here is excessive immigration, illegal and legal, from Mesoamerica. There are two poles of objective:

    1) Allow it to happen because it will lead to political power for a democratic establishment. Eventually, it will transform huge areas of the US into Latino regions. More or less this is happening in California.

    2) Oppose it, and also reverse it, and re-people the country with Whites.

    The Wall is a social conflict because, obviously, one segment will ‘sell the country out’ in order to gain more political power. That is the understructure to the present conflict and ‘debate’.

    • Zoe Brain

      An accurate post.

      See https://thebrunswicknews.com/opinion/editorial_columns/memo-to-president-trump-declare-an-emergency/article_eedc8004-37b2-52f0-9f38-4ca1a9ad9939.html

      ” America’s southern border is eventually going to be militarized and defended or the United States, as we have known it, is going to cease to exist. And Americans will not go gentle into that good night….

      The more multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual America becomes — the less it looks like Ronald Reagan’s America — the more dependably Democratic it will become.

      The Democratic Party is hostile to white men, because the smaller the share of the U.S. population that white men become, the sooner that Democrats inherit the national estate.

      The only way to greater “diversity,” the golden calf of the Democratic Party, is to increase the number of women, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics, and thereby reduce the number of white men.

      The decisive issues on which Trump was elected were not the old Republican litany of tax cuts, conservative judges and increased defense spending.

      They were securing the borders, extricating America from foolish wars, eliminating trade deficits with NAFTA nations, the EU and China, making allies pay their fair share of the common defense, resurrecting our manufacturing base, and getting along with Russia.

      “America First!” is still a winning hand. ”

      Hail Victory.

      • Zoe Brain

        Just don’t ever call such a white-MEN-only policy ‘racist’ or gynephobic.

      • Glenn Logan

        “America First!” is still a winning hand. ”

        Is it? I don’t think so. Virtually half the country is in opposition to this idea.

        And while I’m at it, I personally don’t give a hoot about the racial composition of America, as a general principle. I really don’t object to letting more people in legally. For me (and I can’t speak to what Trump actually thinks, or others on the right side of this argument) it isn’t about making sure we stay “white” or “men.” It’s about making sure our country isn’t subverted from within by unassimilated aliens.

        Of course the Left wants the USA to be more brown and female — I get that. And as long as we get there by legal, controlled, reasonable means, I don’t even object to it. If the Republicans cannot sell their ideas to non-whites, perhaps they should go the way of the dodo.

        But what’s driving the problem are unassimilated alien cultures effectively setting up enclaves within our country. I’m not talking about traditional associative mini-regions of immigrants who have assimilated but decided to form their own cultural enclave — that has a long and useful history in America.

        But what we have now is not that. And it needs to stop.

        • Glen Logan writes: “And while I’m at it, I personally don’t give a hoot about the racial composition of America, as a general principle. I really don’t object to letting more people in legally. For me (and I can’t speak to what Trump actually thinks, or others on the right side of this argument) it isn’t about making sure we stay “white” or “men.” It’s about making sure our country isn’t subverted from within by unassimilated aliens.

          Of course the Left wants the USA to be more brown and female — I get that. And as long as we get there by legal, controlled, reasonable means, I don’t even object to it. If the Republicans cannot sell their ideas to non-whites, perhaps they should go the way of the dodo.

          But what’s driving the problem are unassimilated alien cultures effectively setting up enclaves within our country. I’m not talking about traditional associative mini-regions of immigrants who have assimilated but decided to form their own cultural enclave — that has a long and useful history in America.

          You are completely within your rights not to ‘give a hoot’. But are you within your rights to stop others from a) thinking differently than you b) communicating their ideas c) convincing others of its good sense and d) setting out to 1) establish objectives and 2) achieve them?

          If you can conceive of ‘internal subversion’ by ‘unassimilated aliens’, you might not be that far from conceiving of subversion by assimilated aliens. California might be becoming a State with an abundance of ‘assimilated aliens’ who may yet, in ways that could be noted, not be good material for the Republic. I would have to say that in my opinion we are witnessing the activities of ‘assimilated aliens’ as well as normal citizens that could be seen as subversive. Some say that the entire democratic political machine as it is now is ‘subversive’ (though I would use a less hot term). Much depends (perhaps all depends) on how one defines America (what it is and what it is supposed to be). However the issue does not begin nor end there: Europe, Australia and Canada are also confronting those questions.

          In paragraph two I could take that to mean that you are *acting irresponsibly*. I would also suggest that there are many people who seem to have your idea, who are comfortable with it. But my question is: Is this right and good? Another question: What if someone took a differing position and said they were completely opposed to your laissez faire? Would you see them necessarily as morally wrong? And what if they saw your position as morally wrong? Would you accept an argument of that sort?

          It is not ‘Republicans’, necessarily, who hold ideas contrary to yours. In fact many Republicans think exactly as you do. They serve progressive policies. In order to think differently requires neither a democrat or a republican stance, it requires being informed by different elements. It requires some study too. It does not in any sense require a *radical ideology* but really only a liberal ideology and one of common sense.

          It is possible that your view [“But what’s driving the problem are unassimilated alien cultures effectively setting up enclaves within our country”] is partial and incomplete. You do not seem to take the issue as having much seriousness. What if you are wrong? What if, assimilated or not, the ‘brown demographic’ (I do not know how else to put it) is fundamentally opposed to America qua America? What if they want (to push the metaphor) tear down the monuments of America and in this sense remake America? What if, as their demographic increases, their activism becomes even more strident than now? What if it is inevitable that it do just that? What if your choices are bad choices for *your progeny*?

          In fact there are many many different questions that relate to these issues that could be asked. I wish to assure you that I am aware of places where all these ideas are discussed in detail.

          I know this is not a popular idea either, and it is unlikely coming from me, but I do not think ‘female rulership’ or to be ruled by women or e feminized culture — and definitely not by ‘feminists’! — is at all a good thing. There is a problem with a ‘brown and female’ activist demographic.

          Why is it simply impossible to state these things openly? Why does it seem like a crime to even think them?

          • Glenn Logan

            You are completely within your rights not to ‘give a hoot’. But are you within your rights to stop others from a) thinking differently than you b) communicating their ideas c) convincing others of its good sense and d) setting out to 1) establish objectives and 2) achieve them?

            Umm, well, I’d be within my rights to object to the said “different thinking” if it is, for example insane, like the Left’s idea of uncontrolled immigration. The answers to the rest of the question follows from there.

            But no, I wouldn’t stop (which assumes force other than speech or lawful assembly) anyone from thinking their own thoughts, attempting to persuade others, or setting and achieving objectives. I may well oppose all the above actively within legal limits, but that would be the extent of it.

            If you can conceive of ‘internal subversion’ by ‘unassimilated aliens’, you might not be that far from conceiving of subversion by assimilated aliens.

            If they are aliens, and not citizens, there is no question of conception. The problem is, if the aliens are here legally and attempting subversion through protected speech and assembly, I can hardly complain.

            California might be becoming a State with an abundance of ‘assimilated aliens’ who may yet, in ways that could be noted, not be good material for the Republic.

            Okay, this seems self-contradictory. If they are aliens, the are not part of the Republic. If they are citizens, then whether we consider them good or not may inform future immigration decisions, but we can’t undo the past.

            In paragraph two I could take that to mean that you are *acting irresponsibly*. I would also suggest that there are many people who seem to have your idea, who are comfortable with it. But my question is: Is this right and good?

            I guess that largely depends upon who you ask.

            What if someone took a differing position and said they were completely opposed to your laissez faire? Would you see them necessarily as morally wrong?

            Well, it depends upon the nature of their opposition, I suppose. If their position is based on racial identity or a similar protected characteristic, I most likely would consider that immoral, by my lights. Your mileage may vary.

            As to how they see my position, I really couldn’t care. That amounts to a difference of opinion, and I can hardly police the opinions of others, nor would I care to try.

            You do not seem to take the issue as having much seriousness. What if you are wrong? What if, assimilated or not, the ‘brown demographic’ (I do not know how else to put it) is fundamentally opposed to America qua America? What if they want (to push the metaphor) tear down the monuments of America and in this sense remake America?

            I take this very seriously, but even if what you say is in fact the unalloyed reality (and I don’t think it actually is), our system of government and Constitution as interpreted requires us to allow their opposition, event to the very idea of the Republic itself and its fundamental foundations.

            If they try to undo the Republic, my opposition would likely escalate to armed resistance, but that is an extreme case that hopefully will never take place.

            What if, as their demographic increases, their activism becomes even more strident than now? What if it is inevitable that it do just that? What if your choices are bad choices for *your progeny*?

            Then my progeny, if I had any, would have to deal with it. It is not my desire to summon the future I would choose, nor borrow trouble that may or may not come.

            I know this is not a popular idea either, and it is unlikely coming from me, but I do not think ‘female rulership’ or to be ruled by women or e feminized culture — and definitely not by ‘feminists’! — is at all a good thing. There is a problem with a ‘brown and female’ activist demographic.

            I can only say that I have no intrinsic objection to female leadership if they are able to make the hard choices. I have seen women who could (Margret Thatcher comes to mind). Obviously, if we place people in charge and they destroy the Republic, that’s on us as much as it’s on them, regardless of their race or gender. We are a democratic republic, after all.

            Why is it simply impossible to state these things openly? Why does it seem like a crime to even think them?

            I’m sure I don’t know what you mean. Bigotry, regardless of how honest one thinks it is, is going to be strongly condemned. It is no crime to understand a woman cannot play at the same level of men in many sports, and generally in intense combat roles requiring extreme physical demands.

            It is also beyond question that women have emotional qualities which can adversely affect their leadership ability in certain situations. I reject any racial component to either, though.

            • Good Morning. Thanks for your response.

              But no, I wouldn’t stop (which assumes force other than speech or lawful assembly) anyone from thinking their own thoughts, attempting to persuade others, or setting and achieving objectives. I may well oppose all the above actively within legal limits, but that would be the extent of it.

              Certainly then you would not support driving Steve King out of political career then? This is not the thread where that issue is being discussed but it has been on my mind. So, while I am glad that you are the sort that would allow a diversity of opinion, and activism, in the body-politic, from where I sit I notice devious means of controlling people’s ideas. In my view, beginning now, the State will start to intervene more intensely in the social conflicts that are now manifesting. But these views of mine expand into other areas beyond the scope of this present conversation.

              Well, it depends upon the nature of their opposition, I suppose. If their position is based on racial identity or a similar protected characteristic, I most likely would consider that immoral, by my lights. Your mileage may vary.

              As to how they see my position, I really couldn’t care. That amounts to a difference of opinion, and I can hardly police the opinions of others, nor would I care to try.

              As I made efforts to explain on other threads, it is a mistake to reduce these social issues and issues of the preservation of America or of civilization, strictly to questions of race and origin. Yet, if the opposition can make that reduction, and ridicule it, they do seem to win points. I argue for ‘social homogeneity’ as being more sustainable, more natural, more healthy, more fruitful, than what I understand (forced) ‘multiculturalism’ to be. I see the origin of present social conflict not in the moral failure of white people of the US, but as a result of attempts to socially engineer people in accord with bizarre social and economic objectives. Instead of seeing the present USA as a ‘city on a hill’ and an example for all humanity, my vision tends to be somewhat darkened and suspicious. I write about this all the time so, perhaps, you have a sense already.

              I have come to suspect — it is a suggestion and an opinion only at this time — that the future of America as we now know it will involve some sort of civil separation. Such things happen ‘in the course of human events’. But again, these ideas extend far beyond the scope of our present exchange of views.

              I take this very seriously, but even if what you say is in fact the unalloyed reality (and I don’t think it actually is), our system of government and Constitution as interpreted requires us to allow their opposition, event to the very idea of the Republic itself and its fundamental foundations.

              If they try to undo the Republic, my opposition would likely escalate to armed resistance, but that is an extreme case that hopefully will never take place.

              I see that already the *battle lines have been drawn*, and I see the ideological battles as being ‘of consequence’. I have included a very short video which paints a rational and intelligible picture of *what is really going on* and what its consequences are. To this, I propose and also *we propose* a simple and viable and also a peaceful solution: the conscious effort to arrive at an intellectual position where self-preservation and self-identity and self-appreciation becomes highlighted. But also becomes ‘activist’. I see a person like Steve King as the first stage in such political activism. That they will group together and tear him down, though I understand the *logic* of this if I place myself within their system-of-view, they are in fact showing that they serve processes that will result in their demise. And that *demise* is taking shape right now, right in front of us.

              You surprised me in some degree when you said you *don’t give a hoot*. But, you are typical of the 200 millions Whites in America. You have lost the ability to self-identify. Your *identity* has been undermined, and now the *identity* you have is a kind of ‘false-structure’. I have also written a good deal about this: it is an identity that takes form within an abstraction: Americanism. While I can say that I understand this, and even might say that I respect idealism, this particular form of it, to my eyes, seems literally suicidal.

              But, naturally, I am operating with a different set of predicates. My effort, and *our effort*, is to communicate our understanding of the real predicates, and to reestablish *proper identity* that can become activist and militant.

            • PS: My own *relationship* to these issues, I admit, is odd. But not weird or impossible. I grew up in Jewish family, quite strict, in Caracas Venezuela. My family became naturalized US citizens through machinations available and myself as a result.

              My own father is a convert to Judaism and is European. His is a strange story. Thus, I am ‘half’ European and ‘half’ Jewish. As you may know, people in the movement in which I participate intellectually (and both myself and my sister are married to men who are involved in these traditionalist and right-leaning ‘identitarian’ movements) are suspicious of Jews. They have issues identifying us as ‘white’. I agree to some extend: we are social chameleons.

              But in my case, partly resulting from converting to Christianity and rejecting Judaism, I have opted to define what I serve as *Europe*. It sounds grandiose, or perhaps idealistically childish? It came about through a very odd causal line that much is certain.

              A person has the option of defining their ‘personal project’. Or not. Many people exist within a space of limbo. They exist, that is true, but they do not serve anything. They are *atoms* that come to be possessed by whatever power exerts the larger influence on them. If you think about it, you might understand what I mean. My ideals have to do with serving The Kingdom of Christ and within that project *Europe*. You will notice that by accenting *Europe* I mean something special and distinct.

              It is likely confusing that I could speak of a Christian orientation and yet put emphasis on somatic identity. Because it is true like what Steve King says, and I believe him, that he sees all people as ‘children of God’. But my ‘doctrines’, if you will, can be explained and are based in those of the sanctity of property.

              It is within this *project* that I am seeking to establish my own ‘identity’. Identity is both discovered but also contrived. As idealism is contrived. I have come to certain definitions largely as a result of my time spent here which is now over 4 years! I can’t quite believe it. I have come to see that my *project* is actually classically liberal taken on the whole. It is not radical and it is not extremist. But it is made to seem so by those who have gained ideological control in America. My more or less centrist realism and liberalism is seen as pathological! But the same is true for a person like Steve King. The dogs will now attack him, tear him to shreds, and howl over his remains. But what *Steve King* represents and what he stands for is far more solid, far more righteous in a strict sense, than those who will undertake to destroy him.

              This is what I see in any case.

    • Michael R.

      Democrats agree to fund border wall…in Jordan. Inconsistency is a prime Democratic Party value.

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/9/inside-the-beltway-democrats-paid-for-a-wall-in-jo/

  4. This is a truly pessimistic view of the USA today.

    Malcolm X said, “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

    Progressives have infected and seized the vast majority of the media and they’re using it as their personal propaganda tool. The Progressive they’re the evil ones propaganda rhetoric is clearly on the rise. I think we may have actually found that illegal immigration is the Progressives’ hill to die on, the only question I have right now is will their throngs of lunatic PHISP’s (Political Hackified Idiots Supporting Progressives) see it that way; I think the answer is yes.

    The political left in DC and the left’s propaganda media are actively dog whistling their base trying to inflame their army of PHISP’s to take to the streets enmasse. Emotional political antiology and innuendo laced Progressive propaganda is rising to a near fever pitch directly targeting PHISP’s. These PHISP’s are the sacrificial pawns to the Progressive elite; they are fully consumed ideological Progressives, an army of indoctrinated Social Justice Warrior fanatics, ANTIFA’s fascist terrorism, ideological Socialists, closet Communists, active Totalitarian intimidators, and of course the brainwashed infecting cancer of instigating fools that just want violence and chaos. It’s probably easier to just say that Progressives want those that actively engage in Political Antiology to take to the streets. Progressives want these people in the streets enmasse and they will likely get it soon. The enemy of this “anti” horde will be anyone that disagrees with them, might oppose them, or simply will not publicly support their thinking. What happens when literal hordes of PHISP’s take to the streets and start seeking mob vigilante vengeance against those they oppose? No one will be immune, you either rationalize the mob with an ends justify the means mentality, or you try to sit by apathetically saying it’s not your fight which directly and indirectly enables the mob, or you actively oppose it.

    Remember the prophetic words of Martin Niemöller

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

    When we see and hear PHISP’s emotional propaganda constantly being rationalized and things like “Hate Speech = Murder”, “cops are murderers”, “fuck white people”, “Trump is a racist”, “anyone that supports Trump is a racist”, “border security is racist”, “enforcing immigration laws is racist”, “you don’t have the right to voice your opinion”, “putting cops in violent schools is racist”, “school choice is racist”, “illegitimate President”, “not my President”, “fuck Trump and fuck you for voting for him”, “Trump is a Putin pawn”, “Trump is working for Russia”, “Trump Russia collusion”, “border walls are immoral”, etc, etc, etc, (the list is endless) are being presented as fact, we know that the minds are completely consumed by emotion and cannot think critically or logically. All these PHISP’s can see is that anything they oppose is evil, and if history has shown us anything it has shown us that evil must be destroyed before it is allowed to take hold and anything is justified when destroying evil. The United States political left has been permanently radicalized into believing that You Are The Evil That We’ve Been Waiting For and you either join them or your are the enemy. Yes, these PHISP’s don’t have mirrors and cannot recognize the evil they’ve become and that their emotional hate has completely consumed them and blinded them into thinking that everything they do is virtuous.

    Hold on to your hats folks I think we are rapidly approaching the left’s psychological precipice, in fact we may have already reached it and we’re just waiting for the shot heard round the world.

    Time will tell if this is accurate or over the edge paranoia.

    • Emerson’s ‘Concord Hymn’ of 1837:

      By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
      Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
      Here once the embattled farmers stood,
      And fired the shot heard round the world.

      The foe long since in silence slept;
      Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
      And Time the ruined bridge has swept
      Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

      On this green bank, by this soft stream,
      We set to-day a votive stone;
      That memory may their deed redeem,
      When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

      Spirit, that made those heroes dare,
      To die, and leave their children free,
      Bid Time and Nature gently spare
      The shaft we raise to them and thee.

      We can know that we are really & truly within a postmodern confusion when every side lays claim to having the Spirit and being the Spirit of ‘heroes’ daring to ‘leave their children free’.

      “The shot heard round the world” is a phrase referring to several historical incidents, particularly the opening of the American Revolutionary War in 1775 and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914.

      It is interesting how we are forced to recur to the past to help to explain the present. It doesn’t always work. This present is unprecedented!

      Reduced to its most bare elements, the present ‘struggle for freedom’ has to do with resistance to The Great Replacement. It was outlined by Madison Grant 100 years ago in The Passing of the Great Race. Now, it has come to fruition.

      To recover ‘true liberalism’ (Grant was such) one has to undermine ‘radical hyper-liberalism’. It is a process of decolonization of the mind! Once that is done, radical hyper-liberalism is punctured, and it deflates, and then becomes painfully visible for what it is: radical anti-intellectualism, heretical & undermining to ALL OCCIDENTAL CATEGORIES.

      Please, feel free to quote me! 🙂

  5. Other Bill

    Whatever the area: defense, military tactics, nuclear deterrence, foreign policy; when they’re out of power, Democrats, lefties and the media instantly become experts in that field. And lo and behold, those instant experts all agree that doing what the Republicans want to do is WRONG. Curious, no? Childish, actually.

    • Other Bill

      The lefty splaining invariably starts with, “It’s complicated,” and then goes on to explain how you’re an idiot. Obfuscation.

  6. Michael R.

    As we saw when the caravan reached San Diego, walls are very useful. Would we have been able to stop the caravan if that section of the border hadn’t been walled? Not for 10 minutes unless we were prepared to shoot all of them. If you just have a wall an no one monitoring it? Then it is pretty useless. A wall with the promise of free stuff and maybe citizenship if you can hide long enough is just a challenge. A wall with people manning the wall who will throw you back if you try to get over it is discouraging. A manned wall with an enforced policy that anyone who goes over it and gets caught will be thrown out and NEVER will be eligible for a legal residency, citizenship, or even a tourist visa presents a formidable obstacle.

    This nonsense that these people are refugees seeking asylum, but then they are allowed to go back to their home country for holidays to visit (where the ‘oppression’ is temporarily suspended?) is just ridiculous. There are roughly 1 million illegal alien children enrolled in our public schools at a cost of $11 billion dollars each year just for the education. When you add in the free lunches, food stamps, and other social programs, this value skyrockets. Each illegal alien costs the US taxpayer $72,000 while here. Their children cost even more. Calling the cost of this wall astronomical is laughable in the face of these amounts.

    i don’t see why we can’t just dump every illegal alien we catch at their country’s embassy after we fingerprint and DNA test them. I suspect that is THE BEST I could hope for if I were caught illegally in another country. In Russia, you tend to get a 6 month jail term (bonus: hepatitis and tuberculosis) then expelled. Iran expels 200,000-300,000 people/year, Mexico just deports you, China has rewards for people who turn in illegal aliens to the police, and in Australia you will get imprisoned (it is required). Instead we have “Psychology Today” telling us that if we don’t LIKE illegal immigrants, we are racist.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201806/who-does-not-illegal-immigrants-and-why

    • This dumbing down the definition of racism will likely incite many white people to find common cause with Steve King.

      • Ask Progressives to support their argument that Congressman Steve King is a racist by telling us how the words he said are “racist” and they can’t do it. What’s completely true is that Congressman Steve King’s words are not politically correct and they are insensitive but I haven’t personally seen any of his words that are actually racist. Progressives do not understand that correlation does not equal causation.

        I asked the following of, what I perceived as, a pompous Progressive blogger that wrote that Congressman King’s was spouting racist statements:

        Pick any one (more if you like) of those statements made by Congressman Steve King and explain how it is “racist”.

        For you to properly explain this you must fully understand the following…

        RACIST: A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

        DISCRIMINATION: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

        PREJUDICE: Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

        BIGOT: A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

        How dare I challenge a Progressive to support their claim!

        What the blogger did instead of answering my challenge was to not allow the comment to be posted in what appeared to be an ongoing effort to censor anything that the blogger could not address with his usual Progressive rhetoric; the fact is that this blogger actively censored comments submitted and did not post almost all of my comments that perforated his ideological bubble. Now his Progressively censored ideological bubble is safe, he turned off all comments to his echo chamber blog. Personally I think that if a blogger isn’t willing to take the hard questions along with the easy questions they shouldn’t dive into the world of internet blogging.

        Over the last 10 years it’s becoming abundantly clear to me that when Progressive rhetoric is directly challenged and the Progressive can’t think of talking points to use as a counter argument they either censor the challenge if possible, attack the messenger, deflect, or head for the hills with their tail between their legs and act as if the challenge was never presented. My perception of modern day Progressives is that they’re rhetorical cowards.

        I see this morning that Congressman Steve King was stripped of committee assignments. Progressives and their army of irrational social justice warriors are elated but I bet the removal of committee assignments won’t be enough for them. Irrational social justice warriors have been handed another win.

        Social justice warriors have won the battle of the minds.

        • ”his Progressively censored ideological bubble is safe, he turned off all comments to his echo chamber blog.”

          Z and myself are “fellow travelers,” so I watched this unfold at warp speed. Z was told by this thin-skinned weenie blogger to “go masturbate,” and also had his “wellness” questioned.

          When Z responded as (Heh!) only he can, his responses weren’t posted, giving the appearance that thin-skinned weenie blogger’s comments were uncontested, ergo, beyond reproach; weak act!

          This guy must be absolutely aghast that not everyone limits their opinions to pre-approved selections from the “Lefty World View Cafeteria.”

          ”if a blogger isn’t willing to take the hard questions along with the easy questions they shouldn’t dive into the world of internet blogging.”

          Ya think?

          Glass half full? Makes one appreciate this site all the more where Jack rarely uses the whistle and ”Let’s ‘Em Play.”

        • I don’t see how King can be defended, ZS, and his comments are racist. The argument that the accomplishments of Western Civilization proves some kind of superiority of the white race—that is what he's saying and has said in the past, is ignorant and racist by definition. Western Civilization turned out to be superior in many ways to other cultures, but that is culture, not race, at work, and culture has too many components to count, much less measure. Nor was Western civilization the creation of "whites" alone.

          How is King's statement racist? How is that a hard question? He continually cites Western Civilization as an accomplishment of European whies, elevating race over region and culture, and uses this to rationalize phrases like "white supremacy."

          Furthermore, why defend an idiot? Even if such a statemnt could be defended, blurting it out when far less provocative and dubious statements are being called racist is just beyond belief.

          • Jack wrote, “The argument that the accomplishments of Western Civilization proves some kind of superiority of the white race”

            Where is the quote associate with it.

            Please remember I did say, “I haven’t personally seen any of his words that are actually racist.” I’m completely open to seeing more of his statements that show his racism, so where is the quote associate with what you wrote above?

            • Well, usually King is a bit more careful. But in 2016, during the GOP convention and a panel discussion with Charles Pierce and Chris Hayes, this exchange occurred:

              PIERCE: Tell you what, in that hall today, that hall is wired. That hall is wired by loud, unhappy, dissatisfied white people. Any sign of rebellion is going to get shouted down either kindly or roughly but that’s what’s going to happen.

              KING: This whole business does get a little tired. I would ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people you are talking about. Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?

              ( The “other people” the panelists had just been talking about were black Americans and Mexicans.)

              HAYES: Than white people?

              KING: Than Western civilization itself. That’s rooted in western Europe, eastern Europe and the United States of America, and every place where Christianity settled the world. That’s all of Western civilization.

              “Categories of people” meant race. King quickly backtracked to “Western Civilization,” but he clearly means “whites.” Mexicans are part of Western civilization: can he read a map? American blacks are part of Western civilization.

              • The visual document is useful.

                American Black are unwilling victims of Western civilization. As Angela Davis said they were ‘robbed from the shores of Africa’ and made to serve in the empire of the white man’s will. They did not come voluntarily, and they are often in resistance (quite naturally) to what has been imposed upon them.

                Mexico was conquered through an act of supreme treachery, similarly to Peru, and the Spanish government managed to take over a sort of confederation of indigenous tribes and on top of that construct a culture and a nation. It is dysfunctional at its core for obvious reasons. The indigenous culture of Mexico has been civilized under the Mexican regime up to a certain point, yet the farther that one gets from the cultural and economic center, the more one *returns* to indigenous ways. All that this means is that Mexico, in a substantial sense, is not really part of Occidental culture and is in ways that can be described fairly and intelligently, peripheral to it.

                What King said was crude and in a sense careless, but in no sense was it inaccurate. But far more to the point: no one is allowed to speak the truth about things. To say the truth. You must bend your truths to fit their misrepresentations, their willed revisions, and all this in the context of a Hyper-liberal culture under the ideological dominion of coercive force.

                Categories of people can include race, certainly. And race is relevant up to a point. But that idea — that there are racial differences between differently evolved people — is part of unthinkable thought. Not that it does not have some decent science behind it (it does). Therefore, mentioning this I am speaking the truth. But this truth cannot be spoken and for thinking what I think, and far more for saying it, I must be castigated and harmed. That is how things function today.

                But this is not the most important aspect of the argument(s) against acquiescing to a demographic replacement. But to do this requires a knowledge-base. A background in history. Self-knowledge in a cultural sense. Just a few years back it was the basic education in a liberal European society. Especially in the Sixties and Post-sixties this sane and intelligent liberalism was attacked at its foundation. Just as the culture of the Occident was simultaneously attacked so too the paideia of the Occident was undermined.

                And that is what Steve King was referring to. And he is right. He simply articulated the base of a self-defensive and self-valuating position. But that is intolerable in the American intellectual environment. Now, he will be taken out and shot at dawn.

                The issue here is that America has been made into a ‘multicultural society’. Deliberately, disparate peoples have been imported into what was a European supermajority of diverse European stock. The conflicts that we now see are the result of this insane project. One can easily access information — sound, coherent, intelligent and fair — that describes what is going on and why. It can be read and it can be studied.

                But, I do accept that today people can only entertain these ideas silently, within their own heads, or secretly in whispered conversations.

                If you say any part of what I am saying publicly you will be dragged out of your home and destroyed.

              • First, it sounds like Charles Pierce is a bigot.

                Second, I stand by my statement that correlation does not equal causation in this regard. What King said was clearly not politically correct and clearly insensitive but evidence that he is a racist or that the words were racist, I’m just not buying it.

                • I can’t imagine why. A non-racist just doesn’t say that. Political incorrectness and insensitivity are not the issue. He equates the success of Western Civilization with the superiority of the white race. It is clear and obvious from his words. You have to twist logic and language to interpret them otherwise.

                  I’ll have more examples in the full post.

  7. Cross posting from the original blog, even though much of what I said has been covered here:

    I hear a lot of pseudo-scientific blather, to cover up the bullshit being espoused. I AM an engineer. The ‘wall expert’ is full of shit, six ways from Sunday. I don’t care if she is a ‘court accepted wall expert’ or not: I suspect not given her lack of scientific understanding and how she shades her arguments. My partisan hack detector was pegged.

    (The Climate Change fear mongering is more bullshit, but I have dealt with the fake ‘evidence’ before and will ignore it here)

    It boils down to a fact Democrats are well aware of: walls work. Walls will limit the number of second class citizens Democrats can use to inflate their votes. This makes them ‘immoral.’ Funny how Democrats all lock their doors and put up walls for themselves.

    A wall cannot be turned off. All of the extra courts, border security, virtual this-or-that can be simply turned off, the first time a Democrat is in power. This is why Democrats are willing to fund anything but a wall.

    While a wall alone is not the only answer, the Democrats know that opening a hole in an already existing wall will not play well with voters, who want border security, on the whole. Everything else is window dressing, excuses to not act.

    We on the law and order side of immigration policy have been lied to by Democrats (and the Elites) about border security for decades now. Excuse us if we don’t believe more lies coming from the same crowd who lied to Reagan, to Bush, and to Trump. Build the damn wall.

    I DID like the truth about enforcing existing laws (and making them stronger) on American citizens who hire illegals. That alone would make a wall irrelevant.

    The Elite Establishment (both sides of the aisle) fear that solution most of all. The Swamp makes a LOT of money on illegals. Dry up the reason illegals come here and the revenue source goes away.

    • Michael R.

      They say the wall is ineffective, then why are they so against building it? If they are telling the truth that they think a wall won’t do any good, they should be thrilled. The Democrats could use the wall funding as a bargaining chip to get DACA passed, or a path to citizenship for all illegal aliens. Instead, they are vehemently against a wall. The way Democrats waste money, it can’t be the cost. You don’t think Democrats would spend $5 billion, or $50 billion, or $500 billion to help illegal aliens? The Democrats are telling their welfare-addled voters and loyal federal workers that illegal immigrants are more valuable than their American voters. The Democrats shut down the government on behalf of foreign nationals and then scream “Foreign collusion!” at Trump.

      You know the wall will be effective. Look who is so against it they will stop Food Stamps to prevent it?

  8. One of the things that bothered me about the original comment is the term ‘economic refugee.’ What does that really mean? Who decides who qualifies? What kind of help is considered? And why haven’t I heard of such ardor supporting succor for American citizens in need when companies fold or middle-aged unemployed couldn’t find comparable jobs and don’t have the cash for retraining or moving cross country. Dropping down a level was tolerable if you could pop back up, but now there’s too many squabbling for lower level jobs- cheaper, too. Citizens and legal immigrants shouldn’t be priced out of jobs, and businesses are quick to wriggle to lower pay- that’s how business is. *There are a LOT of economic refugees* to the point the term has no meaning or special weighting.

  9. Laura Loomer and…um…undocumented asylum seekers pay an unannounced visit to SanFranNan; hilarity ensues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.