The issue is not whether a wall will work. Obviously, a 2000 mile hundred foot high wall to a depth of 50 feet with no openings will keep everyone out. The question is whether it is the most efficient and effective way to handle the job or is it just throwing money at a problem because the president made a campaign promise that it would get done. Since the Mexicans are not paying for it, it’s your tax dollars; don’t you care how they are spent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It wouldn’t need to be that tall or deep. And you are choosing to ignore that it is only a very important piece of a broader solution.
Right now BP is trying to catch the water after it comes in and throw it back out. That is not a solution when a boat is sinking. You MUST stop it slow the leak. The wall slows the leak to a great extent at which point BP is able to catch any drips that make it through, and ICE can continue bailing the water that has been sitting in the hull dragging the ship down.
Do you see how these things work together to form a comprehensive solution? Or do you think it makes more sense to spend more and more money trying to bail water despite the fact that it’s entering at a faster rate than it can be removed? Because that is truly wasteful spending.
Also, it’s a border barrier. A strong fence. That was a compromise made by Trump that the lefties keep ignoring while claiming he refuses to compromise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk