The only way it would actually be effective is if it could be affordable, and while you have claimed that there are areas that could be "easily" drawn from, we have seen firsthand that it's simply not true. Your solution seems to be that money allocated to one source can simply be redirected to other sources at the flip of a switch. The United States has thus far failed to coordinate all three of them. What's happening is that you're asking me to judge the effectiveness of a hypothetical scenario, and I am stating the reality of the situation, which includes how they have failed to recruit adequate personnel, which I did cite, so claiming that I've only attacked the cost of the wall is yet another lie, but what else should I expect from you?
Your hypothetical scenario is not worth denying any further because this administration has consistently failed to get anywhere close to it. If they have failed thus far, then they have not proven in any way that it would truly be effective. You're asking me to ignore the evidence that exists and just assume that your idea will somehow work. If you want to believe that you hypothesis can become reality, then do more than simply state where that money "could" be pulled from. Use the money to actually fund all of them.
Allocating the funds from any of the areas i mentioned, would be enough to turn the wall into a 2-4 year process. The 7 billion that trump is working towards with his executive order, the 10 billion in foreign aid that trump is pulling from foreign aid. The billion from the reopening, the money saved pulling out of wars, the billion that the pentagon was willing to allocate towards the border wall, that's 19 billion already. 10 billion would be more than enough to make things progress smoothly on a yearly budget. That would be 3-4 years total. The refusal of congress to do so does not change that. The wall costs 25 billion tops (by the estimates of most professionals) for a standard wall. You are not telling me how a wall+surveillance+personnel would not work, you are telling me that we are hitting roadblocks towards getting them. I 100% agree that trump is hitting funding roadblocks that's not something that we disagree on, that does not mean there is nowhere that we cannot pull from, it merely means that congress is playing at the same old song and dance in that area, where they obstruct instead of work together. I am talking about the actual effectiveness of said combination once implemented. But i can see where you may be making this mistake, and you claim to not want to try making some simple hypotheticals on the topic
D. Striker @ Flame Dragon
I ask that you all read the hypothetical above in relation to my question. Please tell me if, in the scenario i laid out in the spoiler, which situation would be better for the border patrol. Even if handling the larger numbers, my opinion is that in the second one, with the barrier in the center, managing the patrol side would be FAR simpler, but roxas and i appear to be misunderstanding each other. so i ask to make sure i'm not missing any detail in my example. now back to roxas.
But let's make this easier for you to understand: Do not mention money. At all. That is not in any way related to the current question i am asking. Now from the top: Using just basic logic, once implemented, would the combination of wall+border+surveilance not be far more effective than simply having people and cameras? Would a wall not delay the people who try to cross long enough for people to actually arrive more often? would cameras not allow people to be detected earlier? would beolple be under less strain with a wall granting a buffer and cameras detecting more locations? wouldn't the individual workload of each person decrease with a wall and cameras, meaning fewer people could do a job to greater effect? these are the things i am asking you to refute. you seem to not want to answer the question as if it were a hurdle beyond common sense. I asked the same question to horyu and he understood and responded immediately. I laid it out the same way, and only you seem to be stuck on money alone. that is not the topic, the topic is potential effectiveness. it's not that hard.
You serious with that last bit? I don't control the money unanimously, Nor does trump outside of executive order, and that's a last ditch use, to ensure that the power isn't overly abused. If I did, or if trump did, this wall would be getting built already. It's being blocked by his opposition, But a block does not mean it would not work, it simply means the people blocking will not even allow you the ability to try and complete the task.
You said that America needs to ensure that those coming into America have an actual desire to become Americans. You were the one who brought up that people need to come in legally, and you asked that I addressed that point. So I did. It was not "pointless to the context", it was the context. You brought up an argument about legal immigration, so I responded to it accordingly. And I responded by showing that the administration has failed to control the border. You asked for a response about controlling the border, and I gave you one that was directly related. Do you not demand an answer, and then call that answer pointless when it directly addresses the argument as you asked me to. It just further highlights how your arguments are completely dishonest.
Did you not read my statements with this one?
Now, going by my own statements, word for word, in response to your own, let's go step by step to break up any misunderstandings you may have.
1) I stated in my first comment, that the U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody. I stand by that, even if The U.S. had paperwork and people backed up to a million, we would be under no obligation to accept anybody. people get rejected for citizenship daily, and people are accepted just as often. I Personally believe that we should have a better immigration policy, to make sure things are better streamlined, but that does not mean the U.S. is under obligation to accept people from different countries. understand me so far?
2) In my second comment, I said controlling the borders of your country is a standard rule for any country. Letting anybody in, and sheltering any and everybody is not a sustainable practice in any capacity. Can we agree on that much?
3) This is the third reply in relation to your line of comments about legal immigrants. I have already established that this country has no obligation to accept anybody. It could even refuse everybody, and remain well within it's rights. You cited a backlog of citizens well after knowing that i made the above two statements that the U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody. You have clearly misunderstood me, but this goes on further.
4) This is my comment right after your own relating to the backlog. Now going by my three prior comments, what exactly would make you come under the assumption that a backlog would be relevant as an argument against my points? I have stated that the U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody from another country, I have stated that I agree the legal immigration process should be reformed, and While i do not believe this country has to accept people, I have never defended the current immigration system, and i have advocated countless times that better laws are needed in this very thread. I cited the reasoning from the official spokesman for the backlog, within your own citation, and the logic of it checks out well enough from where i'm sitting.
5) The thing i asked you to respond to was: "There is only so much room in america, there are only so many opportunities, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible to ensure that those coming into america have an actual desire to become Americans, makes perfect sense"
This fits well within my prior statements, and does not conflict with either of my prior points. Those points being:
A) The U.S. has no obligation to accept anybody
B) The immigration laws and process should be reformed to make the process work better so long as we are allowing it, as it will improve the country's image as a whole to have a more effective immigration process.
America having such a slow system is something i already said should be corrected, and the fact that said people have even been given a shot is something that america did not have to grant them, but has don. In short, I have been saying from the start that we need to refine the process, that way if we are willing to accept people, we have less tangle for both the U.S. and any immigrants.
There we go. I have given you ample amounts of logic and reasoning. I have literally built a hypothetical step by step to demonstrate what i was talking about and ensure that we are on the same page. I have given you no unattainable requests like ["If you want to believe that you hypothesis can become reality, then do more than simply state where that money "could" be pulled from. Use the money to actually fund all of them." To which i have responded by explaining to you multiple areas we have money, and could siphon from without damaging any essential programs] I have done everything in my power to avoid further misunderstandings, and i have addressed your points in extreme detail. even addressing your citations, line by line in many cases to ensure that i fully refute your points.