Thursday, April 27, 2017

Blunt truths about the border wall


Ann Coulter brings the smackdown.

No politician wants to have to explain a vote against the wall. What the Democrats want is for Trump to be stuck explaining why he didn't build the wall.

Then it will be a bloodbath. Not only Trump, but also the entire GOP, is dead if he doesn't build a wall. Republicans will be wiped out in the midterms, Democrats will have a 300-seat House majority, and Trump will have to come up with an excuse for why he's not running for re-election.

The New York Times and MSNBC are not going to say, "We are so impressed with his growth in office, we're going to drop all that nonsense about Russia and endorse the Republican ticket!"

No, at that point, Trump will be the worst of everything.

No one voted for Trump because of the "Access Hollywood" tape. They voted for him because of his issues; most prominently, his promise to build "a big beautiful wall." And who's going to pay for it? MEXICO!

You can't say that at every campaign rally for 18 months and then not build a wall.

. . .

He's the commander in chief! He said he'd build a wall. If he can't do that, Trump is finished, the Republican Party is finished, and the country is finished.

There's more at the link.

I think Ms. Coulter is right.  Above all else, President Trump's base wants the wall.  Heck, I'm not part of his base, and I want the wall!  Illegal immigration is destroying the rule of law in the USA.  It's the single most important issue requiring a solution if the rule of law is to be restored.  The solution will include the problems of sanctuary cities, employers hiring illegal alien labor, etc. - but it starts and ends with controlling the border, and preventing the massive influx that peaked under President Obama.

President Trump, stop shilly-shallying.  To hell with politics as usual.  Build the damned wall!

Peter

20 comments:

August said...

It is easier from him to engage in warfare- which, frankly, could be more effective than a wall, and more legitimate than bombing Syria. Historically, there wasn't a distinction between an invasion of 'the people' and an invasion of military (which in this case would be the Mexican gangs).

Uncle Lar said...

Peter, I have to disagree somewhat.
It's never been about a literal wall. It has always been about border security.
Sure, there are parts of our southern border where a wall is the right answer. With of course seismic detectors to prohibit tunnels.
But the true need is to close a far too porous border to restrict the heretofore constant flow of people and drugs coming in and harming our society.
True, some sort of wall will need to be constructed where appropriate, perhaps with El Chapo's confiscated drug money. Or hell, do a go fund me. But remember that border security was never anything more than the first necessary step in dealing with the real problem of illegals in country taking jobs and using up resources and government benefits that are needed by our citizens.

mohaverat said...

Are we going to just give Mexico the Rio Grande river and all the water rights? Some of the ranchers who border Mexico need that water? I like the idea of the wall but there are logistical problems that must be overcome.

Jason said...

Are we going to just give Mexico the Rio Grande river

IIRC, most (if not all) of the water going into the Rio Grand comes from parts north, so the wall would just mean that none of that water gets to Mexico.

My heart bleeds...

Anonymous said...

" Illegal immigration is destroying the rule of law in the USA. "

Wow, thats pretty big!

Some might say its already destroyed and there's lots of blame to spread around.

Dad29 said...

Following on Anony above: what makes you think that Trump--or anyone else in D.C.--is interested in the Rule of Law's return?

You're just assuming something which is not really in evidence, Peter. God help us all.

Barry Needham said...


The problem with any fortification, be it a wall, fence, minefield, or electronic security, is that you have to defend it. I expect a US Army division could defend 100 miles of border in depth, say 1,000 square miles. The problem is that we have only 6 active divisions in the USA and 10 reserves; with 2,000 miles of border that could require 20 divisions. Other divisions are deployed worldwide.

20,000 Border patrol is about 1 division, which is nowhere near up to the task.

Anonymous said...

BTDW

Anonymous said...

I think he's not in a position to start on big battles yet.

The IRS chief hasn't been ousted yet. Comey is still sitting.
Trump just got his first Supreme appointed (very smoothly).

He's still rooting out leakers and saboteurs with carefully
crafted ruse memos. I think that his push for the wall will come
after the current budget crisis, and after a tax bill and Obamacare
repeal have been passed.

The battle for the wall will be very destructive, and he needs to
get the low hanging fruit done first.

Anonymous said...

I might even prefer to have him take on the courts first; if enough crazy judges issue insane injunctions, he might have the pretext to do some Constitutional heavy lifting.

Anonymous said...

Whether or not a 2,000 mile long 20 ft high continuous concrete panel constitutes an effective barrier, the symbolism is not insignificant.

And, speaking of symbolism, an even greater demonstration of it would be the demolition of the first building Formerly Occupied By An Abolished Federal Agency. I hear Jack Loizeaux's kids have some open slots in their calendar.

Alphonse

Anonymous said...

Trump is Commander in chief of the military?

The military is already budgeted for?

The military has a corp of engineers?

Use them to start work on the damn wall!

Anonymous said...

Use the monies that formerly funded sanctuary cities for building the wall. (not quite sure why the tax payer is tapped for funding illegal activities anyway - make the private contributor pay for them instead). Illegal foreign drug monies can be used for construction and maintenance of this as well.

But a good 1st step before building the wall is completely free - make it illegal for American EMPLOYERS to hire illegal aliens in the 1st place. If that were enacted, I'm sure the illegals would self deport and / or stop coming in the 1st place. This doesn't stop the drugs and terrorists however.

I'm thinking the desert southwest (limited tree cover) can be patrolled with the aerostats already used in limited areas. Then build the wall where heavy ground cover is required to slow foot traffic.

Anonymous said...

One of the main reasons I did not vote for Trump was he says all kinds of things then comes out with a completely polar opposite position and denies he ever held the first view.

I do believe Ms. Coulter is correct on this one. Build the damn wall if you know what's good for you Donald.

Gerry

August said...

Secure Fence Act of 2006

There is funding for a 'fence' and part of that act is language pertaining to 'operational control' which means you could pretty much make that fence a wall if that's what it took to maintain operational control.

And that's just border control, not military. We have some ineffable national interest in Syria or NK, but not at the border? The absurdity of empire, especially one that refuses to be honest with itself.

Rolf said...

All true, but it's been less than a four months, and he'd fighting the Rs, the Ds, the Media, the Deep State, academia, and many state governments.

Give him time for his deals and pressures to percolate and develop. I'm sure we'll see things happening in due course. OTOH, we might see things get interesting in Korea, too, which might monkey-wrench more than a few plans.

My biggest wish is that he'd demote or fire Ivanka and the son-in-law.

Anonymous said...

There is no wall. There was never going to be a wall. Campaign puffery. So if he has to build SOMETHING, it won't be THE Wall. It'll be government-funded makework.

Antibubba

Feather Blade said...

"The problem with any fortification, be it a wall, fence, minefield, or electronic security, is that you have to defend it."

My brother, a .mil type, mentioned something to me once about border policing being a civilian job, not a military one.

That said, if what it takes to secure our borders is to bring all of our deployed military back within our own borders, I'm not seeing the problem.

Build military bases all along the border, bring the troops home and station them down there, we suddenly have a secure border, and are not interfering in the affairs of sovereign foreign nations.

Seems like all-around winning to me.

J Bogan said...

Cut off the welfare in all forms, cut off the free education, cut off the in school meals, AND make it illegal to hire any invader. That might be a good start.

Anonymous said...

It already is illegal to hire illegal immigrants. Most of them have fake IDs though (a felony) so get hired anyway.