To you Trump supporters

[TheNewYorker]

Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?

They will always find a way, so long as they have such good reasons to come here (healthcare, citizenship, etc)

Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.

[Unregistered]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spcJmCurEH8

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

a wall will just keep us all in

[Unregistered]

Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?

They will always find a way, so long as they have such good reasons to come here (healthcare, citizenship, etc)

Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.

You're a great reason not to go.

[Unregistered]

a wall will just keep us all in

There will be door ya know. Shakes head. Quite frankly you people don't deserve a Donald Trump.

[oyarde]

There will be door ya know. Shakes head. Quite frankly you people don't deserve a Donald Trump.

I deserve a Conservative .

[osan]

Why don't you simpletons¹ realize that a wall², no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?

1) referring to the people here as simpletons drives your credibility WAY down. Not too many of those here. Hell, I don't even qualify as one of those/

2) nobody's going to build a damned wall. This is Trump playing the game and doing it really well. He isn't just going to wave his dick around and suddenly a wall pops up like a mushroom. There's this thing called "Congress", and they are likely to hate Trump with great venom... assuming this deal isn't quite 100% smoke and mirrors. A big assumption, I agree, and if I'm wrong then it doesn't matter if we put Obama in for a tenth term, the agenda will be pursued and, likely, fulfilled.

Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.

Agreed. That, or just shooting them as they come across the border would also work. 1/2

[JK/SEA]

mexico will pay for it...its gonna be great. Problem is, it will keep all these $#@!in' liberals in.

[Intoxiklown]

I deserve a Conservative .

This is pure win

[Unregistered]

I deserve a Conservative .

Ah, so you mean someone who pays lip service to "small government" ideas and fails to actually conserve anything fundamental to said society? One who just parrots an obscure, out-dated economic platform (*cough* Austrian economics) and Mises articles all day? Have fun with that one, I'll take my traditionalist society with guilds, worker co-ops, and Mussolini-styled Corporatism. Oh yeah, and some semblance of a homogeneous society would be nice.

[Unregistered]

Why don't you simpletons realize that a wall, no matter how tall won't keep the illegal immigrants out?

They will always find a way, so long as they have such good reasons to come here (healthcare, citizenship, etc)

Stop giving them reasons to come here would be a lot quicker, easier, and cheaper. And then you wouldn't need any damn wall or border patrol at all.

I could get behind open borders if ALL welfare ends first.

That being said, I supported Austin Petersen anyway and have the t-shirt, but Gary Johnson belongs in the Green Party, or the laughing academy. I'll be voting for the person best able to defeat the Clinton Crime Family, and it sure as hell isn't Gary Johnson. To misquote Reagan, the Libertarian party left me.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ah, so you mean someone who pays lip service to "small government" ideas and fails to actually conserve anything fundamental to said society? One who just parrots an obscure, out-dated economic platform (*cough* Austrian economics) and Mises articles all day? Have fun with that one, I'll take my traditionalist society with guilds, worker co-ops, and Mussolini-styled Corporatism. Oh yeah, and some semblance of a homogeneous society would be nice.

Tell me alt-right person, what is your criticism of laissez faire, and why would you prefer the underlined?

[bunklocoempire]

There will be door ya know. Shakes head. Quite frankly you people don't deserve a Donald Trump.

You are correct. A mandatory state god of safety is not what I deserve, nor what I desire.

You and I are meat bags with expiration dates. I've accepted my expiration date.

Take yer fear and... do what ever. Try not to force your safety god on me, if you don't mind.

[westkyle]

Ah, so you mean someone who pays lip service to "small government" ideas and fails to actually conserve anything fundamental to said society?

Sounds like Donald Trump. That's all he is. Lip Service. And he's pretty bad at it.

[articlesnutriti]

why you want not illegal immigrants out ?

[helmuth_hubener]

a wall will just keep us all in

It will totally work and be effective to keep Americans out of Mexico. But it could never, ever, oh no, work at keeping Mexicans out of America. Only a simpleton could believe that.

A one-sided wall. A geometric miracle.

[Danke]

It will totally work and be effective to keep Americans out of Mexico. But it could never, ever, oh no, work at keeping Mexicans out of America. Only a simpleton could believe that.

A one-sided wall. A geometric miracle.

One way turnstiles would work.

[Superfluous Man]

1) referring to the people here as simpletons drives your credibility WAY down. Not too many of those here. Hell, I don't even qualify as one of those/

In context he only called Trump supporters that. So his credibility is intact. Let's not kid ourselves, there are lots of bright people here. But there has never been a shortage of simpletons.

[dannno]

WWIII with Russia is a more important issue than the wall.

[Jerry C]

Though I am not a Trump supporter I do understand their concerns about illegal immigration. Ron Paul does however make a very valid point in an article he wrote about a wall also being used to keep people in as well as out which is something that concerns me greatly. Knowing who comes in the country and how many is a basic security issue but simply building a wall ignores the countless underground tunnels that have been built to bypass various walls and fences that have already been built.

If you really want to deal with illegal immigration you need to deal with it directly in the pocketbook. Ending the drug war will take care of at least half the problem because it will reduce the amount of dangerous criminals that attempt to cross the border, going after employers that knowing hire illegal immigrants and cutting off welfare and other benefits to illegal immigrants will also help a great deal. The legal immigration system also needs to be address as it is not uncommon for people to wait for years to immigrate legally.

[helmuth_hubener]

Does building a car ignore the countless traffic accidents that have occurred over the years, Jerry?

Walls are an effective, proven, simple technology. Argue against the wisdom of building any particular wall as you wish. But to argue:

• "Wall X will never work to keep people out, only to keep people in"

is to make a complete nonsense incomprehensible statement. It betrays a lack of reflection regarding: the nature of walls, principles of geometry, and rudimentary logic.

To argue:

• "Walls do not work, because it is possible to circumvent them"

is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for a thing to "work."

[bunklocoempire]

I don't want to be responsible for my individual wall.

How about I force you to "share" a huge, ineffective government wall with me?

[Spikender]

I wouldn't mind having a ten foot wall around my own property, truth be told.

[osan]

Does building a car ignore the countless traffic accidents that have occurred over the years, Jerry?

Walls are an effective, proven, simple technology. Argue against the wisdom of building any particular wall as you wish. But to argue:

• "Wall X will never work to keep people out, only to keep people in"

is to make a complete nonsense incomprehensible statement. It betrays a lack of reflection regarding: the nature of walls, principles of geometry, and rudimentary logic.

To argue:

• "Walls do not work, because it is possible to circumvent them"

is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for a thing to "work."

Do you really want a bloody wall? Have Americacns become so artless a people that we cannot see the better path toward a somewhat fuzzily defined goal?

End the welfare state. But if that drech is left in place, illegals cannot claim any public benefit. You cannot work for any public institution. You cannot vote, be licensed for ANYTHING, and so on.

End the idiotic drug war. No more profit motive, no more need for mules, etc.

I have no problem with patrolling the border. Anyone caught coming across is turned away. If they resist, they get shot.

Otherwise, why have a nation at all? I prefer autodiathism (basic anarchy), but that cannot be realized in a world dominated by Empire. Better we have no borders, yet were we to make it so, we as a people would be destroyed in no time. These are the practical realities of a world gone insane. Therefore, you either take the minimal set of measures to protect yourself against the madness, or you will be consumed. Choice is ours.

If those measures fail to be sufficient, take the next step, whatever it might be. But why go right to the Berlin Solution? I thing this represents a serious failure in creative problem solving. Hell, I'd prefer machine-gun towers to a wall. If this presents an actual existential threat to America, then I would make a unilateral declaration to the MX government: anyone on your side of the border within ONE MILE of the line will be shot dead, no hesitation, no questions asked. Since you will not control YOUR people's movements into our territory, we will control them for you. Done deal, end of discussion. The first few thousands killed and you would see a change in the attitudes of those currently sporting those of the wrong variety. If MX wants a hot war with us, that too would be OK. Moving our borders 100 miles into the Sonora would likely benefit us. I'd say $#@! or get off the pot on the issue.

I could think of dozens of other ways to address this without making America look like East Germany.

[oyarde]

why you want not illegal immigrants out ?

Not sure what that means

[oyarde]

I wouldn't mind having a ten foot wall around my own property, truth be told.

I have a tank trap across the entire front and three wooded ridges on the other property lines .

[kpitcher]

I wouldn't mind having a ten foot wall around my own property, truth be told.

Township rules prohibit fences over 8 feet around here.

[Spikender]

I have a tank trap across the entire front and three wooded ridges on the other property lines .

I'm now looking to you for inspiration in securing my property. I'm not an expert on anti-tank defense measures, I'll look into that. A tank trap across the front sounds good, though, they'll most likely come on foot from the back and sides and show off their strength from the front. Might put some bear traps around the back and sides and a few tactically placed pitfalls for some anti-personnel defense.

Township rules prohibit fences over 8 feet around here.

That isn't nearly tall enough. I know a few people who stand on their tiptoes and scale an 8 foot wall.

[helmuth_hubener]

Do you really want a bloody wall?

I am merely -- helpfully! -- enumerating two totally invalid, illogical, and stupid arguments against building walls, so that now people can stop repeating them and instead take up valid, logical, and intelligent arguments.

Better we have no borders, yet were we to make it so, we as a people would be destroyed in no time. These are the practical realities

Why would it be better to have no borders? Why would you think borders are inherently morally evil? [And so colossally evil as to have to be carefully weighed against the (actual!) colossal evil of total annihilation?!] Borders seem morally neutral, to me.

But why go right to the Berlin Solution?

Aha, here is why. You associate walls with Communism. Communism was evil (agreed), and the most famous wall of our generation was associated with Communism.

I, on the other hand, associate walls with many other things: Private Gated Communities, for instance. These are excellent developments for liberty -- innovative, free-market, problem-solving, spontaneous, decentralized.

I think of city-states like Syracuse, Luxembourg, the Vatican, and San Marino.

I think of brave little bands of men holding out against massive onslaughts of evil and tyranny in places like Masada and Vienna.

Walls are everywhere in Neal Stephenson's conception of a mature libertarian society portrayed in The Diamond Age (and also in the brand new, footloose and free-wheeling libertarian society in Snow Crash).

Walls serve great purposes. They are morally neutral. They are particularly morally neutral, as they do not do anything, they literally just sit there. Opposed to the injustice and immorality of walls? One might as well take up the banner against the moral outrage that is mountain ranges.

[osan]

Why would it be better to have no borders?

Being each free, we are normatively entitled to move hither-thither as we please, assuming no trespass.

That we have and perhaps need borders is sad testament to the general condition of humanity.

Why would you think borders are inherently morally evil?

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never wrote nor intimated such a thing.

[And so colossally evil as to have to be carefully weighed against the (actual!) colossal evil of total annihilation?!] Borders seem morally neutral, to me.

While I do not view them as evil in sé, I do see them as a symptom of a deeper problem with the breed in the ways they are used toward political ends.

You associate walls with Communism. Communism was evil (agreed), and the most famous wall of our generation was associated with Communism.

That is only part of the story, and a small part at that.

I, on the other hand, associate walls with many other things: Private Gated Communities, for instance. These are excellent developments for liberty -- innovative, free-market, problem-solving, spontaneous, decentralized.

Insofar as private property rights are concerned, I may agree. But reiterating, my objection stems mainly from the political use of such structures. At the very least they say bad things about some of us.

I think of city-states like the Syracuse, Luxembourg, the Vatican, and San Marino.

I think of brave little bands of men holding out against massive onslaughts of evil and tyranny in places like Masada and Vienna.

Right, and had men behaved themselves properly, there would have been no need for walled cities, which is the essence of my point.

Walls are everywhere in Neal Stephenson's conception of a mature libertarian society portrayed in The Diamond Age (and also in the brand new, footloose and free-wheeling libertarian society in Snow Crash).

Not familiar; cannot comment.

Walls serve great purposes.

I've not intimated otherwise, save in the given context. And do notice that I did not say a wall was an invalid solution, but that IMO it is not a valid solution of first resort, given the current circumstances. Were Genghis Khan amassing his troops across the Rio Grande, I might feel otherwise.

They are morally neutral.

In vacuo, yes. In context, generally not. I agree that they can be good. I also assert they can be less than that. The Berlin Wall was a prime less-than example, which is why I used it. If I don't have to have a nation that looks like that, I would then prefer it not. If it must, then so be it. However, the latter case has not yet been demonstrated by a very long shot. That is why I advocate for other avenues of redress before turning to building walls. I'm excluding nothing, but advising a rationally graduated escalation of resorts until the problem is treated with sufficiency.

They are particularly morally neutral, as they do not do anything, they literally just sit there. Opposed to the injustice and immorality of walls? One might as well take up the banner against the moral outrage that is mountain ranges.

You have read WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much into what I wrote. Narrow thy vision mightily.