Wall and Border Security in exchange for Gun Control

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
3,907
34
126
#26
I'd much rather spend money creating and *enforcing* a better guest worker program than a silly wall. We've got jobs Americans won't do and Mexico has workers willing to do them. Why stop the natural flow of labor and force it under the table? We might have to rethink our automatic citizenship for anyone born on American soil for it to work though. Otherwise guest workers would just hide a pregnancy to have an anchor baby.

I don't believe illegal immigration is anywhere near a crisis, and I'm absolutely sure the last thing we need is a damn wall.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,299
212
126
#27
I want everybody in America to go back where they came from and leave me alone.
 
Mar 25, 2001
17,431
344
126
#29
Because the wall is not as important as giving into a domestic terrorist blackmailer, AKA Trump.

That’s not even the context of the conversation. We were talking about a wall for citizenship etc not whether he gov should be shut down. He said that a wall would never be a fair trade for anything, ever. That doesn’t make sense to me at all, why wouldn’t it?
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#31
A Border wall (like the original 25 billion proposed concrete) in exchange for a national gun control law similar to the New York State "SAFE ACT" would you be in favor of it??
Not sure why you get downvotes for asking a question.
 
Aug 21, 2003
28,895
318
126
#32
I'd much rather spend money creating and *enforcing* a better guest worker program than a silly wall. We've got jobs Americans won't do and Mexico has workers willing to do them. Why stop the natural flow of labor and force it under the table? We might have to rethink our automatic citizenship for anyone born on American soil for it to work though. Otherwise guest workers would just hide a pregnancy to have an anchor baby.

I don't know believe illegal immigration is anywhere near a crisis, and I'm absolutely sure the last thing we need is a damn wall.
Most people don't realize how intertwined American history, at least from the turn of the last century, is with migrant Mexican labor. The scaling back or elimination of programs that enabled that to function legally played no small part in the explosion of illegal immigration we saw in the 70s thru the 2000s. All the economic incentives remained in place for both those workers and the businesses that rely upon their labor so illegal immigration skyrocketed.

Given that the US birth rate has hit a multi decade low I'd actually much prefer if those people stayed, had children, and raised them as US citizens. Native borns just aren't having the kids we need to avoid demographic and eventually economic problems.
 
Jul 20, 2001
53,617
554
126
#33
Not sure why you get downvotes for asking a question.
My guess is that some folks view asking the question as an attempt to insert a wedge issue (gun control) into a pretty straight forward issue (border wall).
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,299
212
126
#34
Not sure why you get downvotes for asking a question.
That one is able to register one’s personal opinion of the thoughts of another as has become prevalent on modern electronic social media, and to do so gratuitously and and irrationally like an ape throwing sticks from a tree, is to my mind a mirroring among social media providers of a general mental illness that is now at the forefront of what is destroying modern Western societies. Why bother to read anything when a big red meter reading has already told what to think of the person doing the post. I really question my own moral virtue by continuing to post here with these new changes. I find it repellent and disgusting. Sorry if I offend. Social shaming is a sickness in my opinion and I think this is what that is.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
5,232
84
126
#35
My guess is that some folks view asking the question as an attempt to insert a wedge issue (gun control) into a pretty straight forward issue (border wall).
I can see that, although it seems posed as a trade. I give you what you want. You give me what I want. I don't see an attempt to relate the two problems. Obviously people don't like the trade.
 
Jul 20, 2001
53,617
554
126
#36
I can see that, although it seems posed as a trade. I give you what you want. You give me what I want. I don't see an attempt to relate the two problems. Obviously people don't like the trade.
In this case the discussion would immediately be transformed from one centered on Trump's hostage taking to "The Dems have shutdown the government in order to steal our guns." The wall issue would be completely lost in the discussion. This is the nature of wedge issues: to distract.
 
Oct 15, 1999
12,839
177
126
#37
That one is able to register one’s personal opinion of the thoughts of another as has become prevalent on modern electronic social media, and to do so gratuitously and and irrationally like an ape throwing sticks from a tree, is to my mind a mirroring among social media providers of a general mental illness that is now at the forefront of what is destroying modern Western societies. Why bother to read anything when a big red meter reading has already told what to think of the person doing the post. I really question my own moral virtue by continuing to post here with these new changes. I find it repellent and disgusting. Sorry if I offend. Social shaming is a sickness in my opinion and I think this is what that is.
You can look at it from the other direction and view it as a measure of how well you fit it. Look over at your bright green bar and be comforted by the knowledge that you're approved of, that you're a contributing member of the herd.
I know you don't give a shit about that, but it's important to some people.
 

VRAMdemon

Golden Member
Aug 16, 2012
1,951
204
136
#38
Due to President Trumps behavior this really isn’t about the wall anymore.

It’s about hostage taking.

If the democrats give in now then holding the government hostage works.

Look I’m affected by this shutdown as much or more than almost anyone on this board. If the Dems gave in i go back to work and I get paid for the work I’m doing for free now, so I have a lot to gain. The reason I’m against that (besides it being a waste and against our ideals) is because I understand that the next time Trump wants anything we're furloughed again.

This isn’t a rubber stamping House any more. They are not going to give him more tax cuts for the rich, fire Muelller and make Jared the next special prosecutor, vote for Trump Primae-Noctis or whatever crazy shit Rush Limbaugh tells him to do. So he’s going to have plenty of reasons to want to fallback on what’s worked in the past. So it needs to not work.

The United States doesn’t negotiate with hostage takers. If he wants to negotiate he can do it like every other President.
This...The bottom line is Dems cannot capitulate on this whether it is $5 or $5 billion.

Trump is taking innocent hostages like a terrorist (using intimidation against civilians in the pursuit of political aims) and there is a firm policy against negotiating with hostage takers. There is a reason for that. If they give Trump his money he will learn all he ever needs to do is shut down the government and wait till he gets what he wants
 
Jun 30, 2004
13,414
44
126
#39
I'm pasting in a post to another thread I made 30 minutes ago. I come into this forum less frequently, because the last two years has been a continuum of daily slaps in the face as a mainstream citizen and news watcher. I'm worn out.

But on this matter of some "compromise," I will say "NO . . . FREAKIN' . . . WALL." Nada. There is absolutely nothing that a 2,000 mile wall offers toward national security or a cure for our immigration troubles. Which . . . leads into that post I mentioned:

The notion of a wall stretching from Brownsville to San Diego is the most idiotic, obscene, arrogant and undiplomatic gesture in human history.

The walls currently in place are mostly in locations of high population density where one would expect an abundance of opportunities for illegal crossings. It was demonstrated recently in a briefing to the [so-called] President and to his embarrassment that the same tunnels used by drug smugglers for decades can be built under these walls.

If you look at the map, there is a National Park (Big Bend), a National Monument (Organ Pipe), a wildlife refuge (Cabeza Prieta) on the border between Texas and Yuma. There is also an indian reservation (the Tohono O'odham nation or tribe) which straddles the border. Reservations have rights negotiated with the government that make them almost autonomous states under their relationship with department of Interior, and in this particular case, we're talking about an indian tribe with citizens who are either American, Mexican or both, able to cross the international boundary freely.

If you think it's OK for the government to put up a barrier at Terlingua Abaja and Santa Elena Canyon in Big Bend, I'm sure that the eco-terrorist group Earth First! will consider dynamiting it, and I will cheer them on. Same for Organ Pipe; same for Cabeza Prieta.

The wall that Trump envisions is a 2,000 mile scar across the land that isn't necessary. It would be a hubristic testament to Trump's "greatness" as a builder. It would be an affront to all the Latin peoples of the Americas, and an ecological disaster. The reason Trump and the Base accept it as a good idea is their sociopathic sense of racism, coupled with a lack of appreciation for the Sonoran Desert as a natural wonder. They want to impose this monstrosity on an entire region -- our Southwest -- with its cultural, historical and natural heritage. The wall will do irreparable damage.

As reported constantly by our own government agencies, the drug traffic comes mostly through ports of entry; illegal entry from possible terror suspects occurs at airports; a good deal of illegal entries arise from expired visas. I've done an analysis of Trumpie Senators and Congressmen who adamantly argue for a wall. None of them live in the Southwest. They think our lands here are no less desolate than the moon. A few visits would prove them wrong, but I personally will not welcome them.

You can place sensors all along the border -- a technology developed through our decades of war in the middle east and Afghanistan. Border Patrol helicopters respond quickly to any sign of human movement across the border. Indeed, one such helicopter descended on my hiking party in 2003 simply because one of our camp stoves was belching smoke. These simple facts in our midst and the longstanding existence of the technologies only prove that Trump wants the wall as a monument to his name and a sop to his Base for his ludicrous campaign promise, in which "Mexico would pay for the wall." Now, Trump desperately suggests some ephemeral sleight of hand -- his outrageous imagination -- that somehow the renegotiated trade agreement with Mexico will somehow "pay" for the wall. But since Mexico also has an interest or regard for the land along the border, let them write a check. We know, of course, that they won't.

Then, of course, there is the matter of eminent domain and the privately-owned lands along the border. None or few if any of those citizens want a wall in their back yard.

There will be no wall, or if there is -- I predict consequences. There will only be the self-destruction of a dangerous and toxic presidency -- if the republic even survives it.

For that, I will be more eager in my Christmas wish for 2019: a grand re-make of the Zapruder film -- if Trump has any success at all in obtaining his wall. And I will hope that Earth First! will plant the charges and push the button.

As for "compromise" and the fate of the 800,000 federal public servants, this was all Trump's doing. He has taken them hostage, so -- as he says -- "he can get what he wants." I explained what he really wants. And no responsible person should even consider giving it to him.
 

hal2kilo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2009
9,089
63
126
#40
Anything less than citizenship for DACA at this point is unlikely to fly with the Dems.

Trump isn't interested in any give and take on immigration. Only take.

Idiot could have made the wall deal last year but blew that or gotten the GOP congress to give him the money (didn't even ask).
As long as Steve Miller whispers sweet nothings in Trumps ear, there will be no movement on immigration.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY