Liberal MSNBC guest mistakenly makes amazing case for border wall by Eddie Scarry | January 09, 2019 10:05 AM "MSNBC liberal Heidi Przybyla likely didn’t mean to endorse the border wall proposal but she made a better argument for it than perhaps even President Trump has up to now." "Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Pryzbyla said she had spoken to one law enforcement official in Texas, who said he’s most concerned about receiving more federal funding for agents to patrol the border than he is about erecting any new barriers." "The person she spoke to was Sheriff Clint McDonald, chairman of the Texas Border Sheriffs’ Coalition, who has been saying this for years, not so much because he’s opposed to a physical border in Texas, but because it’s an issue beyond his purview: The Texas border is largely private land, and to build a structure on it would require the federal government to seize it. So, to deal with illegal crossings, he calls for more agents that can patrol the area instead." "Pryzbyla then went on to offer what she no doubt believed was an unassailable critique of the border wall concept." “[McDonald] said that even if the president got the money for his wall, let’s say today, he would still be tied up in court for 10 to 15 years when it comes to Texas,” she said. “So what would happen is you’d get border wall in New Mexico, California, Arizona and you’d create an absolute disaster of a choke point in through Texas.” "She put forth no explanation for why a “choke point” would be a “disaster.” But what does she think legal points of entry into the U.S. are supposed to be? They are, by definition, choke points for people coming into the country. " "The proposed border wall has the explicit purpose of freeing up agents and other resources that can be directed to more vulnerable areas where there is no barrier or where crossings are more frequent." "It’s unclear whether Trump moved the needle his way on the border wall during his national address Tuesday night. Maybe he should have let Pryzbyla deliver it for him."
My opinion: There is no crisis. There will be no wall. Tell Mitch McConnell you will sign the bill the House passed to open the government (and put it in writing), and let's move on. Democratic rebuttal just as boring. Waste of everyone's time.
One of the puzzling things about this, is that these same people who are opposing the building of the wall, have all spoken out about it before, and approved the idea, and money was even set aside to build the wall. Actually, money was set aside for this at least twice, once in 2006, and again in 2013. Yet, the wall was never built, even though at that time , the Democrats were also approving it for Obama to build the wall. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dem...-with-2020-and-nothing-to-do-with-immigration
The Secure Fence Act authorized building 700 miles long, 18 feet high. Trump's wall wants a minimum of 1,000 miles and be at least 35-50 feet high and eventually, in Trump's own words "cost between $8b & $12b" "Currently, 702 miles of fencing separates the United States from Mexico, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection." https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...heck-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/
A wall would pay for itself within a year in reduced welfare expenses. They've already approved far more in aid to Central American and Mexico than Trump is asking for, so it's not about the money. It's about whether we want to survive as a nation or not.
@Peter Renfro @Nancy Hart …. Do you truly believe that there is no crisis at our southern border? If so, please tell me your reasons for thinking that.
If you're in favor of an open border, and don't believe that the United States should have a border, then you won't believe there's a crisis at the border.
I'm not Nancy but there is no more crisis on the southern border than when I lived there, or fifty years ago. Just because a few more people show to up to request intrance to state their case or because this president wants to pretend there is a crisis does not mean there is one. There is no crisis and screaming louder and more often does not make it one.
But, @Bill Boggs , what about the caravans? How many thousands of people can we take in and provide everything for free for? It seems obvious to me that the caravans were sent by someone. Someone who had a purpose. Who had the money to provide transportation, etc. for them. What about the diseases they carry? The diseases that will spread throughout our society? What about the criminals who are among them? One illegal alien among them had been deported three times. I'm not saying never let any of them in but they need to be vetted. We can't do that when so many are able to sneak in. Build the damn wall!
I disagree @Shirley Martin We can vet them where they are, two at a time, six at a time, however we want to; it is our call. We shouldn't be frightened by the large numbers. We can vet them without a wall. I suppose I am not opposed to a partial wall where it is difficult to patrol our border but a tall wall across our total southern border with out good cause is well to be opposed. I seriously discount the disease issue or the criminality among among them. They are scare tactics by our president and most of us know that; he knows less about the situation on our southern border than a teenager living there, either side of it. It is well a wall is opposed.
@Bill Boggs , we just have to agree to disagree on this. I would never want to offend you and I'm sure you feel the same.