Donald Trump's-The Wall

[BANZAI!!!!]

It's been explained time and again exactly how we would get the funds from Mexico, it's obv not as simple as getting a check from them

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/former-mexican-secretary-of-foreign-affairs-trump-could-easily-make-mexico-pay-for-the-wall/article/2004471/

Not what I meant. The diplomatic ramifiactions of an ethnically motivated policy like this one are.. well... lets just be simple about it and say its a dick move. We should be focussed on helping our neighbors. Instead our government is pandering to those that are intimidated by them

[vla1ne]

Just to be clear, because I agree that a country can only support so many citizens well, would giving the undocumented immigrants already living in America a chance to become proper citizens going to suddenly change how many people are living in the country? My issue with mass deportation is that it's going to significantly damage a lot of lives; they'll be physically uprooted from their homes and thrown back to their home countries with no jobs, and especially if that country is something like Mexico, it's going to cause problems.

 

What I'm saying here is, I don't like the idea of an automatic mass-deportation where anyone that isn't a documented citizen is just tossed out. I'd rather the immigration process be better refined with the opportunity for some immigrants to become proper citizens. Of course, I'm not saying pull a Canada and just outright remove visa requirements for Mexicans to work and/or study in the US, but there should be a system put in for undocumented citizens based on how recently they migrated, what kind of work they're holding up, criminal record, etc. to have an opportunity to become documented citizens. I don't like the idea of semi-arbitrary reasons for why someone can stay and why someone is thrown out and I'd rather as few lives be uprooted because of this, but if something needs to be done I'd like to see steps taken to make it as harmless as an action as they can muster.

 

On the topic of the wall, I don't think it's a good idea. Really, I just don't think it's going to accomplish much; people that are desperate to make it into the states will find a way, and there are malicious people (with drugs) that are looking to profit off the desperate. If anything, all I can see that wall accomplishing is either putting a sizable dent in Mexico's wallet (or really just emptying it out), or putting them in bigger trouble than they already are with the economic bullying.

 

And, yeah the situation in Mexico sucks, but I'm not sure if they really could revolt reliably, and that's because of the drug cartels and gangs. If the working class manages to revolt and takes down the government, then what? They still have the rich and powerful cartels who have already been dicking the police around easily, so what if they decide to step in take power? Does Mexico just devolve into a modern-day mad-max of gang vs. gang and no real police to speak of? Should a foreign power step in and make things right? Would the US's economic bullying actually manage to give them leverage over the Mexican government to do just that and fix things up with as few problems as a messy job like that can take? I don't know, as far as messes go, Mexico is a house with a giant water-balloon filled with liquefied human feces stuck in its narrow halls and the goal is to get it out of the house without any problems, and at this point what should even be done?

 

Anyways, reading this post, it's obvious who on this site is the Canadian, huh :/

a bit later than i was planning to respond, my apologies.

 

that's what i was saying. the exceptions being both criminals, and those who held no intention of working. i believe both would be in he minority, but nonetheless, america, as it is, cannot afford to carry more than it has to, immigrants willing to work deserve their chance to stay, otherwise, deportations is the other option.

 

nobody likes that solution, and the reason that many people believe that that is trumps solution, is because that's the narrative pushed, he has not only explained it, but softened it repeatedly over what has been broadcast on channels like CNN, his priority is criminal deportation, which i have no issue with, then those who do not wish to work, which i also do not object with, and past that, it would be on a case by case basis, he also has expressed desire to reform the immigration system to make the process faster and smoother overall.

 

 

yes, it will not stop everybody, but it will reduce the required overall monitoring, create actual jobs both creating and maintaining the wall, and narrow the available paths for those seeking to break in. a wall around your home will not stop determined burglars, but it will at least increase the difficulty. same principal applies, just because it cannot stop a determined person, doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try to lock your doors and windows when you leave. indeed, which is why i do hope he plans to team up with mexico during, or post-wall, to eliminate or at the very least, diminish, the power of drug cartels. mexico isn't weak because of their land, they're weak because they are being ran over by criminals, and their citizens are running away to the easy escape that america provides them.

 

 

maybe not, but imagine if america, instead of funding the opposition, instead funded the actual good guys in this scenario, instead of being the retards like we were in the middle east, we could instead provide our strength and funding to those who wish to protect our neighboring country from drugs and corruption, and no longer wish to run from the cartels. i'd be 100% down with helping pay for that (or even fighting for that cause). razorfist is 100% right, regardless of revolution, america, and even mexico, would benefit greatly from staunching the flow from the open border. diminished drug and weapons trading would put strain on the cartels, america would be lightened up on the immigration front (assuming immigration reform) and should trump truly wish to follow through, we would be easily capable of bringing our neighbor mexico up to our current level (while hopefully growing a bit ourselves). the goal in your scenario is wrong as well. it's not just any house, it's their house. the goal should be to remove the balloons, not the people living there. and short of that, clean the mess left over, leaving as few stains as possible. as long as the balloons exist, nobody can live in that house, so the goal, instead of losing a house and overcrowding another, should be to clean that house out, so that we not only keep the house, but have competent neighbors once more.

 

 

 

 

 

Not what I meant. The diplomatic ramifiactions of an ethnically motivated policy like this one are.. well... lets just be simple about it and say its a dick move. We should be focussed on helping our neighbors. Instead our government is pandering to those that are intimidated by them

there's no reason that we cannot do both. should they help pay for the wall, we then (or simultaneously) help eliminate their cartel problem. would that not be the best deal possible? mutual assistance, they help us guard ourselves, and we help them clean themselves up. would that be so bad of a plan?

[BANZAI!!!!]

a bit later than i was planning to respond, my apologies.

 

that's what i was saying. the exceptions being both criminals, and those who held no intention of working. i believe both would be in he minority, but nonetheless, america, as it is, cannot afford to carry more than it has to, immigrants willing to work deserve their chance to stay, otherwise, deportations is the other option.

 

nobody likes that solution, and the reason that many people believe that that is trumps solution, is because that's the narrative pushed, he has not only explained it, but softened it repeatedly over what has been broadcast on channels like CNN, his priority is criminal deportation, which i have no issue with, then those who do not wish to work, which i also do not object with, and past that, it would be on a case by case basis, he also has expressed desire to reform the immigration system to make the process faster and smoother overall.

 

 

yes, it will not stop everybody, but it will reduce the required overall monitoring, create actual jobs both creating and maintaining the wall, and narrow the available paths for those seeking to break in. a wall around your home will not stop determined burglars, but it will at least increase the difficulty. same principal applies, just because it cannot stop a determined person, doesn't mean you shouldn't at least try to lock your doors and windows when you leave. indeed, which is why i do hope he plans to team up with mexico during, or post-wall, to eliminate or at the very least, diminish, the power of drug cartels. mexico isn't weak because of their land, they're weak because they are being ran over by criminals, and their citizens are running away to the easy escape that america provides them.

 

 

maybe not, but imagine if america, instead of funding the opposition, instead funded the actual good guys in this scenario, instead of being the retards like we were in the middle east, we could instead provide our strength and funding to those who wish to protect our neighboring country from drugs and corruption, and no longer wish to run from the cartels. i'd be 100% down with helping pay for that (or even fighting for that cause). razorfist is 100% right, regardless of revolution, america, and even mexico, would benefit greatly from staunching the flow from the open border. diminished drug and weapons trading would put strain on the cartels, america would be lightened up on the immigration front (assuming immigration reform) and should trump truly wish to follow through, we would be easily capable of bringing our neighbor mexico up to our current level (while hopefully growing a bit ourselves). the goal in your scenario is wrong as well. it's not just any house, it's their house. the goal should be to remove the balloons, not the people living there. and short of that, clean the mess left over, leaving as few stains as possible. as long as the balloons exist, nobody can live in that house, so the goal, instead of losing a house and overcrowding another, should be to clean that house out, so that we not only keep the house, but have competent neighbors once more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

there's no reason that we cannot do both. should they help pay for the wall, we then (or simultaneously) help eliminate their cartel problem. would that not be the best deal possible? mutual assistance, they help us guard ourselves, and we help them clean themselves up. would that be so bad of a plan?

too lazy to edit the quote on mobile. Sorry not sorry.

 

We could also just act like the good samaritans we portend to be, assist mexico with the mutual problem of the drug cartels, fix the real flaws in our immigration system, and remove the need for a bigass expensive wall entirely.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wall would stop gun flow from US to Mexico. That'd help w/ cartels

[VCR_CAT]

Wall would stop gun flow from US to Mexico. That'd help w/ cartels

 

No it wouldn't. Cartel's are rich, and if already they're building miniature submarines to ship drugs to the US, they're as heck going to find a way to keep getting guns, even if it isn't from the states. A difference won't be made there.

[vla1ne]

too lazy to edit the quote on mobile. Sorry not sorry.

 

We could also just act like the good samaritans we portend to be, assist mexico with the mutual problem of the drug cartels, fix the real flaws in our immigration system, and remove the need for a bigass expensive wall entirely.

the wall reduces the places the cartel can run to, and still increases the job market, both building and maintaining said wall. hell in time (if) when mexico becomes stable they could begin to benefit from the job of wall maintenance as well.

 

if you are gonna take down anything, your first action, should be to contain it in as small an area as possible, cut off as many avenues as you can, to reduce movement of the cartels to more predictable levels. narrow the hiding places, and reduce collateral damage, while allowing either mexico or america to set the rules of engagement against the cartels, instead of vice versa. i doubt the people of mexico suffering would shelter the cartels half as eagerly as they would american soldiers, or police. it's about both narrowing the options, and strengthening our defense, so that issues like this, cannot arise as easily in the future. yes, the cartels do have a lot of options due to their current power, but removing some of those options, is not a bad thing, make them take the harder routes, instead of ignoring their current versatility, use it to your own advantage, and their detriment.

[Sunshine Jesse]

The diplomatic ramifiactions of an ethnically motivated policy like this one are.. well... lets just be simple about it and say its a dick move.

That ship sailed the moment we actually elected Donald funking Trump.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Cry me a river, he's being careful not to touch DAPA OR DACA and thus people will give him legroom on this. Only peeps like the ACLU will futilily throw a fit before subsequently being shut down. Look forward to Sessions thrashing them on their bogus cases tbh

[BANZAI!!!!]

Cry me a river, he's being careful not to touch DAPA OR DACA and thus people will give him legroom on this. Only peeps like the ACLU will futilily throw a fit before subsequently being shut down. Look forward to Sessions thrashing them on their bogus cases tbh

And this is relevant how?

 

Also i'm pretty sure none of the cases thr ACLU choses to take on are "bogus". Its kind of their thing. American Civil Liberties Union and all.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And this is relevant how?

 

Also i'm pretty sure none of the cases thr ACLU choses to take on are "bogus". Its kind of their thing. American Civil Liberties Union and all.

It's politically smart. DAPA/DACA can cover him politically from the wall. He'll satisfy his base, and not piss off any hispanics he can peal off

[Tentacruel]

Total waste of money but I guess he's actually gonna build it anyway.

Oh well, gotta keep them titans out some how. 

[vla1ne]

That ship sailed the moment we actually elected Donald f***ing Trump.

good. we need more dick moves to get this world moving again. had we elected hillary, sure, we wouldn't have a wall, but her stance was basically to allow immigrants to come in from all angles for every reason, legally or illegally (in other words, much of the same). we've seen how that goes, this one's a brand new method ^{trademark china 771-206 B.C.} that may actually have a noticeable effect upon both immigration and drug trafficking so long as we are willing to step in and assist mexico in said field. also, yes, they have enough money to build tiny submarines, but how many can they build, how well armed do you think they'll be, and how much of a dent will it put in their wallets if we make undersea travel their only recourse (and put the navy to blowing up their subs) even drug cartel billionaires have limits to how much they can spend once you start staunching the money flow.

[Resident Fascist]

good. we need more dick moves to get this world moving again. had we elected hillary, sure, we wouldn't have a wall, but her stance was basically to allow immigrants to come in from all angles for every reason, legally or illegally (in other words, much of the same). we've seen how that goes, this one's a brand new method ^{trademark china 771-206 B.C.} that may actually have a noticeable effect upon both immigration and drug trafficking so long as we are willing to step in and assist mexico in said field. also, yes, they have enough money to build tiny submarines, but how many can they build, how well armed do you think they'll be, and how much of a dent will it put in their wallets if we make undersea travel their only recourse (and put the navy to blowing up their subs) even drug cartel billionaires have limits to how much they can spend once you start staunching the money flow.

 

You know how dangerous unrestricted submarine warfare is, right? You should know I'm the Navy Girl on this board, so I'll just shoot you down here and say why that can't happen. First of all, you're putting combat vessels, DDs and Submarines, into another country's water to conduct combat operations against it's citizens. Now, that sort of action could easily be misconstrued as an action of war. It's dangerous to do such, because Mexico needs to know exactly what the US Navy is doing, at all times, or you risk starting a conflict. Next, the logistics. Running a Navy is not cheap, especially not one operating in many oceans around the world, like the US Navy does. Running combat ops is very expensive, unfathomably so. If you want to catch drug cartel submarines, you will need a decently sized task force operating within sonar and radar range of all avenues that could be approached by a submarine. Another two issues on the diplomatic level is, an unmarked submarine that does not respond to hails cannot immediately be seen as a cartel sub and fired on. It would be a huge shame upon the US Navy if they fired on a sub of an allied nation on a patrol during radio silence, another situation that may lead to war. Lastly, regardless of their affiliation to crime groups, these people have not directly engaged in an act of war against the United States, therefore, one could easily class them as civilians, non-combatants. Deliberate attempts to harm non-combatants and destroy civilian property is a war crime.

[vla1ne]

You know how dangerous unrestricted submarine warfare is, right? You should know I'm the Navy Girl on this board, so I'll just shoot you down here and say why that can't happen. First of all, you're putting combat vessels, DDs and Submarines, into another country's water to conduct combat operations against it's citizens. Now, that sort of action could easily be misconstrued as an action of war. It's dangerous to do such, because Mexico needs to know exactly what the US Navy is doing, at all times, or you risk starting a conflict. Next, the logistics. Running a Navy is not cheap, especially not one operating in many oceans around the world, like the US Navy does. Running combat ops is very expensive, unfathomably so. If you want to catch drug cartel submarines, you will need a decently sized task force operating within sonar and radar range of all avenues that could be approached by a submarine. Another two issues on the diplomatic level is, an unmarked submarine that does not respond to hails cannot immediately be seen as a cartel sub and fired on. It would be a huge shame upon the US Navy if they fired on a sub of an allied nation on a patrol during radio silence, another situation that may lead to war. Lastly, regardless of their affiliation to crime groups, these people have not directly engaged in an act of war against the United States, therefore, one could easily class them as civilians, non-combatants. Deliberate attempts to harm non-combatants and destroy civilian property is a war crime.

notice how in the first explanation i said joint operation with mexico? i was speaking under that context. the US and mexico, doing joint patrols, raids, and searches, for the source and supply routes of the cartels. 

 

but even outside that, even barring a joint operation you would only need to place your submarines reasonably within our own borders, and a bit farther out to sea, while patrolling the land close to the shores. radio silence does not mean you cannot then follow said submarine to it's end destination, should said destination be within the US territories either. also, they may be non-combatants, but you can detain those found to be illegally immigratiing into the country, and i believe even within a submarine, those same rules apply. they would only be noncombatants so long as they themselves did not become violent, and with that alone, you can force the position of either surrender or retreat, there's all manner of ways to engage, even without firepower. 

[Resident Fascist]

notice how in the first explanation i said joint operation with mexico? i was speaking under that context. the US and mexico, doing joint patrols, raids, and searches, for the source and supply routes of the cartels. 

 

but even outside that, even barring a joint operation you would only need to place your submarines reasonably within our own borders, and a bit farther out to sea, while patrolling the land close to the shores. radio silence does not mean you cannot then follow said submarine to it's end destination, should said destination be within the US territories either. also, they may be non-combatants, but you can detain those found to be illegally immigratiing into the country, and i believe even within a submarine, those same rules apply. they would only be noncombatants so long as they themselves did not become violent, and with that alone, you can force the position of either surrender or retreat, there's all manner of ways to engage, even without firepower. 

 

Mexico has a tiny navy. They recently just decommissioned a Destroyer from 1944, for instance. Also, covering that area with routine patrols would be expensive on both the US and Mexican navy. Who is funding these operations? 

[vla1ne]

Mexico has a tiny navy. They recently just decommissioned a Destroyer from 1944, for instance. Also, covering that area with routine patrols would be expensive on both the US and Mexican navy. Who is funding these operations? 

i will answer this post in the next line, but first, i would like to point out something that's been buzzing around in my head for a bit, mexico cannot maintain a presence against the US on land or sea, were they to go to war, far more than cartels would be destroyed. america is the only side of that scenario that would walk out relatively better off should mexico act with aggression towards us. act of war or no. not saying we should fight them (highly against that), but we would not be much worse off for doing so. onto the meat of the question

 

america would fund the ocean side of things, also, this was briefly brought up earlier today, or yesterday, and i will say the same here as i did there, mexico would fund the wall, and america would handle the heavy lifting on the ocean. we would probably need to use more specialized submarines, with more sonar power than weaponry, and we wouldn't be likely to completely wipe out a cartel focusing on the oceans alone, but with minor presence underwater, you would already have enough force to damage the option. unlike a truck full of drugs, each submarine is a legit investment, losing any subs would damage said cartel heavily, and the resources required to create a submarine would leave more than a few paper trails. the goal would not be to destroy any and all submarines (though that would be a possible, and acceptable outcome imo) it is to make the required effort, not worth the reward. you can't obtain submarines for very cheap, like you can a boat or a car, each loss is a blow to whichever cartel chose that option, and that is the goal. not to erase them (though again, tolerable outcome imo), but to damage them enough to weaken their overall grip. no cartel would stand a chance against even a small fraction of the US navy, below or above water, even should that naval fraction be using nonlethal means of detainment. and if a couple of cartel subs sink in the process, who's gonna say anything (and admit to ties with a cartel that's shipping drugs)?

 

then comes the above ground operation, where the wall would deter and remove many above ground routes. you have then removed 3/4ths of a cartels means of transportation. and sealing their underground routes is only a matter of time at that point, because you will have then placed incredible strain upon all other routes, leaving underground as the only one that they can rely on, and similar to a pipe under pressure,  there will be leaks, small, but one by one, you can isolate those tunnels from both sides.

 

 

of course, this is all hypothetical. we wouldn't see how well such plays would go until they played out.

[Flame Dragon]

Anywayyyy remember when the US was focused on bringing the best and brightest here, instead of just trying to be a human importer? 

This is one of the reasons a boarder wall and other xenophobic policies from Trump are so very bad. It keeps the best and brightest from wanting to come here.

 

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/trumps-election-already-pushing-immigrants-work-study-elsewhere/

 

 

You also have this fact.

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

And to pull an important quote about illegal immigration from that

"The decline in the number of Mexican immigrants residing in the U.S. has been mostly due to a drop of more than 1 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico from a peak of 6.9 million in 2007 to an estimated 5.6 million in 2014 (Passel and Cohn, 2014)."

 

Even if the wall does something, we are already trending away from illegal immigration and immigration from Mexico in general meaning we likely wouldn't even need the wall.

 

 

Arguing that building the wall will create jobs is a terrible argument. Yes, it will, but you can create infrastructure jobs any number of ways.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org

Seriously, US infrastructure is in a terrible state, we have much better uses for the +$25 billion it would cost.

 

We also run into another issue, mass deportation has issues. You don't just snap your fingers and make millions of people disappear over night. The actual legal process between finding them to sending them out of the country is a long one and what happens to those people during the wait time is a VERY real issue we would need be very conscious of it.

[vla1ne]

We also run into another issue, mass deportation has issues. You don't just snap your fingers and make millions of people disappear over night. The actual legal process between finding them to sending them out of the country is a long one and what happens to those people during the wait time is a VERY real issue we would need be very conscious of it.

For this part, how massive are we talking? a couple buses at a time wouldn't be too hard to get, and so long as you're starting with/ focusing on the criminals, detainment and deportation can be as simple as: jail cell->jail bus->mexico, for the others, while deporting the criminals, build a (humane) containment complex, place them there, deport them after the criminals are deported. finding them is the hardest part of the equation, but once you do, the rest is rather simple.

[Flame Dragon]

For this part, how massive are we talking? a couple buses at a time wouldn't be too hard to get, and so long as you're starting with/ focusing on the criminals, detainment and deportation can be as simple as: jail cell->jail bus->mexico, for the others, while deporting the criminals, build a (humane) containment complex, place them there, deport them after the criminals are deported. finding them is the hardest part of the equation, but once you do, the rest is rather simple.

How do you jail millions of people? What jail do you put them in? How many buses do you need to actually to move all these people?

 

The humane complex would be the main way to solve the "what jail" but then you run into other issues. How do you move them all to the jail? Do you build multiple jails? How do you make sure to make sure it is humane? How much time will need to pass before the facility it up and running and we can start moving people out of it?

 

Making sure it's humane is the single biggest issue I can think of though because that can go VERY wrong VERY fast.

[vla1ne]

How do you jail millions of people? What jail do you put them in? How many buses do you need to actually to move all these people?

 

The humane complex would be the main way to solve the "what jail" but then you run into other issues. How do you move them all to the jail? Do you build multiple jails? How do you make sure to make sure it is humane? How much time will need to pass before the facility it up and running and we can start moving people out of it?

 

Making sure it's humane is the single biggest issue I can think of though because that can go VERY wrong VERY fast.

you slow down the process. not millions at once, take it a couple hundreds at a time. the issue with systems of the past is they bit off too much at a time. grand is not the goal, steady is. instead of millions at a time, catch who you can, and return them on a steady schedule. find a pace that's sustainable, and keep just below it. the bus question's valid though. most buses i know of can fit about 50 people tops, and that's with some standing, but i believe prison buses would be the most effective means for the criminal mexican deportees. 4-5 buses at a time, with a light guard on standby, in adjacent vehicles. 

 

you build it first, and show it to the public, get public approval on the living conditions, and then, just like the prisoner system, you deport slowly, as you near capacity. the time taken is the largest question, because he's got 4 years to actually enact any change, and even less time than that to gain widespread public approval.

 

indeed, keep eyes on the place then, have it open and reliant upon inspection. ensure that it's clean, watever guards there may be must not be corrupt, racist, or prejudiced in any manner, but vigilant nonetheless, security must be reasonabe, but not overbearing. there's definitely flaws that could occur, but if he's given it even a days planning, feasible workings would be childs play to figure out.

 

the issue, as you said, would be ensuring that it is both humane, and that it remains humane, and for all trumps crucified, that would be up to the american people to enforce. keep up the outcry, and remain on his ass about it, especially should the system slip up.

[Flame Dragon]

you slow down the process. not millions at once, take it a couple hundreds at a time. the issue with systems of the past is they bit off too much at a time. grand is not the goal, steady is. instead of millions at a time, catch who you can, and return them on a steady schedule. find a pace that's sustainable, and keep just below it. the bus question's valid though. most buses i know of can fit about 50 people tops, and that's with some standing, but i believe prison buses would be the most effective means for the criminal mexican deportees. 4-5 buses at a time, with a light guard on standby, in adjacent vehicles. 

 

you build it first, and show it to the public, get public approval on the living conditions, and then, just like the prisoner system, you deport slowly, as you near capacity. the time taken is the largest question, because he's got 4 years to actually enact any change, and even less time than that to gain widespread public approval.

 

indeed, keep eyes on the place then, have it open and reliant upon inspection. ensure that it's clean, watever guards there may be must not be corrupt, racist, or prejudiced in any manner, but vigilant nonetheless, security must be reasonabe, but not overbearing. there's definitely flaws that could occur, but if he's given it even a days planning, feasible workings would be childs play to figure out.

 

the issue, as you said, would be ensuring that it is both humane, and that it remains humane, and for all trumps crucified, that would be up to the american people to enforce. keep up the outcry, and remain on his ass about it, especially should the system slip up.

Then how will that be any different from now? The deportation numbers for 2013-2015 are 435K, 414K, and 333K. For the reference point on the data

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/16/u-s-immigrant-deportations-fall-to-lowest-level-since-2007/

 

How is this any different from what we've been doing?

 

Building a building is going to take a lot of time, especially if its held to high standards and needs to clear inspections before opening. I can't realistically see this happening for at least a few years and at that point the political climate is likely to be very different.

[vla1ne]

Then how will that be any different from now? The deportation numbers for 2013-2015 are 435K, 414K, and 333K. For the reference point on the data

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/16/u-s-immigrant-deportations-fall-to-lowest-level-since-2007/

 

How is this any different from what we've been doing?

 

Building a building is going to take a lot of time, especially if its held to high standards and needs to clear inspections before opening. I can't realistically see this happening for at least a few years and at that point the political climate is likely to be very different.

the rate of immigration's dropped, so the rate of deportation is almost guaranteed to fall alongside it. less Mexicans coming over means we won't have as many to deport. as for the ones already here, assuming america already has a steady pace and method down, improve the speed of doing so if you want to improve deportation overall. we have a method, improving the speed of the method comes after familiarity with the process. trump will just have to capitalize on that. but the wall's what he would be best pushing after so much emphasis on preventing illegals, over deporting them.

 

improving the speed after developing the method is what i was getting at. but yeah, if less illegals are coming over, it's about the same end to the scenario, so i'll take it.

 

yeah, but it's a strong start that can see some support on both sides of the fence. push the humane method if you want to win more people over. work on speeding up the process in the meantime.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wow

 

[Delibirb]

Wow

 

I lost it at the flag. Pretty emotional.

 

Though that must have been an exceptionally expensive commercial. Surely the whole thing didn't air during the super bowl, yes?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I lost it at the flag. Pretty emotional.

 

Though that must have been an exceptionally expensive commercial. Surely the whole thing didn't air during the super bowl, yes?

They weren't allowed to air the wall. Emotional, but wrongly glorified IMO

 

Should have cut it off at the flag and made it a HRC ad in the general