April 13, 2017

"A US congressman and environmental group have filed the first lawsuit targeting Donald Trump’s plan to build a 30ft wall on the US-Mexico border."

"The suit, brought by Congressman Raúl M Grijalva of Arizona and the Center for Biological Diversity in the US district court for Arizona, seeks to require the government to undertake a comprehensive environmental impact analysis before beginning construction."
[Randy Serraglio, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity] said the existing border fence had already caused significant environmental damage, including flooding and erosion.

In July 2008, a heavy thunderstorm produced a damaging flash flood at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona after the border fence prevented water from flowing away naturally....

Expanding construction on the border could exacerbate the flooding problems, in addition to threatening the survival of species such as jaguars, ocelots, and wolves, Serraglio said....
Here's the website for the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Photo from the website:



A poll:

Does that photo of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument affect your view of Trump's wall?
 
pollcode.com free polls

135 comments:

Sebastian said...

Yes, I support the wall/fence/structure/whatever, insofar as it will actually be built, which is in parts and in some places, knowing Trump and his promises, and this lefty opposition greatly strengthens my support.

Jupiter said...

We love that dirty wall!

Darrell said...

I agree with Congressman Raúl M Grijalva that we should be deploying hunter/killer drones instead.

Bob Ellison said...

Don't forget the damage the wall would do to the mating and breeding patterns of the Anchor Baby race.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

I agree with the Libs on this The wall is a stupid idea. It will not be effective. It will be expensive. It will be damaging to the environment.

So I'll offer my compromise one more time and see if there are any takers.

We'll promise not to build the wall if we can enforce existing Immigration law. Deport any illegal alien who comes into contact with the government. Enforce the law against hiring illegal aliens and prosecute employers who hire illegal aliens.

Deal?

campy said...

Why no option for "the photo makes me even more supportive of the wall."

AprilApple said...

I dunno, Bill from Texas.

There's a lot of common sense in your idea. Probably won't work. No room for K-street progressive graft and illegal D-voter schemes.

Mike Sylwester said...

What are the environmental consequences of allowing millions more illegal aliens to settle in the USA?

How much more fresh water will be pumped or diverted for the growing human population?

How much natural land will be covered by buildings and pavement?

How many animals will lose their habitats?

The Cracker Emcee said...

Another Trump2020 PAC? The Left is too generous...

Once written, twice... said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

I think that a comprehensive environmental impact analysis should take about six months, maximum.

Once written, twice... said...

Republicans will never support serious efforts to prosecute employers of illegals, even though that would go a long way to curtail illegals coming here. Also, rich Republican land owners along the border will never allow this wall to be built.

We all know The Wall was a cynical ploy by Trump to get the Hillbilly vote. It worked.

Martha said...

Althouse site has been loading very very slowly since yesterday—anyone else having that problem?

rehajm said...

Maybe. Do Spotted Owls live in Organ Pipe Cactus?

Jim said...

http://www.sierraclub.org/borderlands/laws-waived-border
Looks like the Sec of DHS has the legal authority to waive all these bullshit laws. Suck on that open borders folks.

tcrosse said...

We all know The Wall was a cynical ploy by Trump to get the Hillbilly vote. It worked.

You campaign for the electorate you've got. Hillary deplored them. It didn't work.

Scott M said...

Screw the wall. Pull most of our troops out of Japan and Germany, and from wherever else we can pull them (cough, Afghanistan, cough) and set up permanent bases along the southern border and actively patrol it.

rhhardin said...

Build a wall of cactuses.

rhhardin said...

Plant nettle.

AJ Lynch said...

I think it is cacti Rh.

mockturtle said...

I've been to Organ Pipe many times and it is a breathtakingly beautiful place. There is already a fence along the border. When I was there last year, Border Patrol choppers were hovering around much of the park and there were warning signs everywhere about drug traffickers. If an electronic wall could differentiate between humans and animals, that might be the better solution. Or, as my mother has often suggested, shoot the interlopers on sight. ;-)

While I do favor a wall, a wall won't stop tunnels. Perhaps we should hire El Chapo as a consultant [heh].

madAsHell said...

anyone else having that problem?

No, blogger.com is part of google. They have bandwidth.

roadgeek said...

Ah, the pieces all fall into place...Congressman Raúl M Grijalva, D-Cartels, is behind this. And he has powerful backing that would hate to see the narco trade disrupted.

MPH said...

Pointless lawsuit. There isn't going to be a wall, okay?

rhhardin said...

Build the wall in Mexico where there are no regulations.

Fritz said...

In July 2008, a heavy thunderstorm produced a damaging flash flood at the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona after the border fence prevented water from flowing away naturally....

They might be related events, but they might not. Damaging flash floods aren't exactly unknown in desert country.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Trump should just issue an executive order that waives the requirement for an Environmental Analysis on a Border Wall and proceed to build it, quickly. That's the kind of "pen and phone" executive action Obama would have taken....

And maybe "safely relocate" the impacted cacti to the good congressman's front yard where he can better care for them.

And then, just for shits and giggs, the EPA can start imposing daily fines on the guy for any number of obscure regulatory infractions about cacti in his yard. Let him battle the EPA leviathan for awhile... see if he changes parties.

Clayton Hennesey said...

The environmental consequences of illegal immigration in the Sonoran Desert National Monument:

http://kurtzjack.photoshelter.com/image/I0000npFpvVXbGLo

If you've been there like I have, you know hese signs are everywhere in the Vekol Valley south of 8. Smugglers typically use Table Top and other surrounding peaks as lookout points and transit caches. The Sonoran Desert is the only place the iconic saguaro cactus grows.

May 24, 2016

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu warned Memorial Day travelers in the western part of the county to be wary of drug cartel assassins.

Babeu urged caution on the part of his deputies and encouraged campers, hikers, mountain bikers and all-terrain vehicle riders using back roads, trails and campsites in areas known to be drug smuggling corridors to consider carrying firearms.

Monday’s advisory cited recent cases in Pinal County that Babeu said involved cartel hitmen, known as “sicarios” in Spanish, attacking the “rip crews” that steal drug loads from rival cartels.


The only thing I'm not sure about is why this idiocy has been tolerated for so long.

Owen said...

Why is Mexico not suing us for stealing all their best workers and the future demographic?

AReasonableMan said...

Unless Mexico is paying for this wall, as Trump promised, he can take the wall and shove it up his ass. No way are US taxpayers paying for this useless Wall to Nowhere.

rcocean said...

An if the envivormental thing doesn't work, the Democrats will get some Judge to declare a wall "unconstitutional" because whatever.

Seriously, whether we get a border wall will depend on Anthony Kennedy.

AReasonableMan said...

Once written, twice... said...
Republicans will never support serious efforts to prosecute employers of illegals, even though that would go a long way to curtail illegals coming here. Also, rich Republican land owners along the border will never allow this wall to be built.

We all know The Wall was a cynical ploy by Trump to get the Hillbilly vote.


We do and given the rate at which Trump is abandoning his campaign promises I assume this one will go soon as well. Nonetheless, we should all stand firm on the point that only money from Mexico can be used to pay for this wall. I have no problem with the Mexican's paying for the wall.

Kate said...

I grew up in AZ and went to Organ Pipe many times. Build the wall. I hope Grijalva stages a protest at the site and they incorporate him into the structure.

rcocean said...

I love how the Democrats are becoming the Proud Anti-American party that's against border security and for illegal aliens and foreigners breaking our laws and breaking into our country.

I mean, its like the most important thing to them.

Nice they're finally coming out of the closet.

rcocean said...

Vote Democrat in 2018 because everyone loves Abdul the terrorist.

buwaya said...

Properly comprehensive enforcement of immigration laws will require police-state tactics. The vast majority of illegal aliens do not work for big-medium businesses which are required to use ID-verification systems and are big targets for embarassing and expensive enforcement actions. La Migra isnt going to walk in to Chevron and catch anyone working for it.

Instead they work for small businesses, subcontractors, under the table or with fake IDs. For that lot enforcement actions will take Stasi-levels of snooping.

Once... will not discuss this because that entity operates strictly on slogans.

Brando said...

I think the number of people who are pro-wall but would think twice about that because of how it would affect endangered species or the environment is precisely zero.

The biggest obstacle to building an actual brick and mortar wall all along the border is not Democrats but rather the fact that it would be far more expensive than proposed, would run into all sorts of legal roadblocks with property owners along the border, and is simply impractical in many spots. As they get closer to the planning stage, that will become more clear and they'll settle for something more like enhancing the existing fencing and adding extra border patrol agents.

holdfast said...

5% tax on all remittances to Mexico.

Boom - Mexico just paid for the wall.

They don't like it? Make it 10%.

Bob Ellison said...

Martha said, "Althouse site has been loading very very slowly since yesterday—anyone else having that problem?"

Yes. I'm on FIOS (e.g. everything loads like lightning when the servers are OK), and for at least the last week, blogger sites like Althouse have been horribly slow.

The solution for me was to re-enable Adblock. The hang-up seems to be cache.craptasticgooglesomethingorother.com. Adblock stops that, and now everything's fast again, but some sites don't like Adblock and will try to keep you from seeing content there if you keep it running.

Mark Jones said...

Legal roadblocks with property owners...

If the government can use eminent domain to steal private property to hand over to private developers (for projects that often don't even happen), they can damn well use it to build a border wall.

Chuck said...

This may be the most revelatory poll yet, as to what has become of the Althouse demographic.

80-plus percent saying that they want the border wall and nothing -- at least not this wall -- will change their mind.

Donald Trump promised that Mexico will pay for the wall. I might listen to arguments about building the wall, when Trump has cash in hand from the Mexican government, to pay for the entire project in full. Including all of the expected litigation.

AJ Lynch said...

Since when do Dems and Liberals worry that we can't afford something?

Elections have consequences, and we won.

Brando said...

"If the government can use eminent domain to steal private property to hand over to private developers (for projects that often don't even happen), they can damn well use it to build a border wall."

The feds are still in litigation with a number of Texan property holders from building the border fence from 2006. Sure, government can win that fight, but it can take a long time and a lot more money than initially proposed.

Brando said...

"Donald Trump promised that Mexico will pay for the wall. I might listen to arguments about building the wall, when Trump has cash in hand from the Mexican government, to pay for the entire project in full. Including all of the expected litigation."

Trump's asking Congress to cough up for it, and I haven't heard anything lately about getting the funding from Mexico so it's safe to assume that any wall money comes from American pockets.

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya said...
Instead they work for small businesses, subcontractors, under the table or with fake IDs. For that lot enforcement actions will take Stasi-levels of snooping.


Maybe, but in reality all you are saying is that the wall is less than useless, because even with a wall the problem will still persist.

No Wall Unless Mexico Pays.

TestTube said...

We could make the wall much more effective, and cheaper too, if we just changed the scope.

Build a wall. Around Mexico City.

Mexico has everything it needs to be a prosperous country. It just has a failed government.

By building a wall around Mexico city, we would protect what is best about Mexico -- good, hard-working, God-fearing people; abundant natural resources; excellent ports; great strategic geographic location; and so forth -- from what is worst about Mexico -- a lousy governing class.



buwaya puti said...

Hi ARM,
The wall is not useless, and for that matter neither is enforcement within the US. The current very well publicized Trumpian enforcement campaign that has so many up in arms, has, after all, had a large effect on border crossing rates already. And this is with existing laws only.
Both wall and enforcement add cost and risk to the enterprise, and affect the decision to cross at all. Neither will be perfectly effective, as in all such things they can only expect to reduce the rate of what they are intended to impede. But that will suffice, probably, in the object of reducing the supply of labor.
Most arguments in the anti-camp are absurdly disingenuous this way. They are rarely honest.

Fernandinande said...

Martha said...
Althouse site has been loading very very slowly since yesterday—anyone else having that problem?


I was getting intermittent 502 errors (google server problem) for a day or so on the comments only.

AJ Lynch said...

The Wall pays for itself many many times over by reducing welfare payments etc the govt spends for illegals.

Let's be honest for once; the hubbub over who pays for the Wall is just same old same old Imperial City kabuki theater.

Herb said...

one other choice might be i'd like a virtual wall installed, infared cameras, drones, movement sensors which is likely our option anyway.

Brando said...

"By building a wall around Mexico city, we would protect what is best about Mexico -- good, hard-working, God-fearing people; abundant natural resources; excellent ports; great strategic geographic location; and so forth -- from what is worst about Mexico -- a lousy governing class."

Why not put a wall around some of our own cities?

"Let's be honest for once; the hubbub over who pays for the Wall is just same old same old Imperial City kabuki theater."

Well Congress is right now fighting over putting in funding for it. If as you say it pays for itself via reduced welfare payments they should be able to get that into a reconciliation bill as it wouldn't have any deficit impact, and therefore not need Democratic votes.

n.n said...

Emigration reform.

Brando said...

"one other choice might be i'd like a virtual wall installed, infared cameras, drones, movement sensors which is likely our option anyway."

That's probably what it's going to be, and DHS hinted at such. The "big physical wall" talk was just a metaphor. Once people start looking at hard numbers we'll see more of a discussion of the hybrid barrier.

Gahrie said...

Build the wall, waive environmental studies, tax electronic remittances and enforce labor laws.....it doesn't have to be one or the other..we can do all of them.

Gahrie said...

Why not put a wall around some of our own cities?

I've proposed something similar. Recycle an idea from history. Grant the large urban areas (LA, SF, NY, Chicago etc) a charter. Make them self governing in everything except foreign relations. Give them sole possession of a member ( or several members) of their delegation in the House of Representatives. Then the rest of the state can finally govern themselves instead of being oppressed by large urban populations.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Build the wall. Any money spent to build it will be dwarfed by the dollars saved in provided benefits, education, medical assistance, etc. spent to support illegals. This doesn't even begin to factor in the effects and costs of the illegal drug traffic and other criminal activity we import with illegal immigration.

AllenS said...

Fuck it. Let's just start shooting illegals. You won't have to shoot that many, before they get the message.

readering said...

Photo of ocelot would have been more effective

Chuck said...

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
Build the wall. Any money spent to build it will be dwarfed by the dollars saved in provided benefits, education, medical assistance, etc. spent to support illegals. This doesn't even begin to factor in the effects and costs of the illegal drug traffic and other criminal activity we import with illegal immigration.

If it's so popular, I am wondering why Trump doesn't start a GoFundMe campaign. Get all the folks just like you, to put up all the money that they think is worthwhile.

You want a border wall? You pay for it.

TestTube said...

Why not build a wall around our Cities?

U.S. cities, while generally annoying, actually contribute a lot to our great nation. Even a basket case like Detroit is showing signs of perking up and being a net asset.

Indeed, there seems to be a direct relationship between how annoying and how productive they are.

Mexico City, on the other hand -- what is it doing for us? What is it doing for MEXICO?

Mexican Government sucked back in the 1830's -- that is why Texas left. Mexican Government still sucks almost two centuries later. Mexican Government has never not sucked, at least not for extended periods of time.

Brando said...

"I've proposed something similar. Recycle an idea from history. Grant the large urban areas (LA, SF, NY, Chicago etc) a charter. Make them self governing in everything except foreign relations. Give them sole possession of a member ( or several members) of their delegation in the House of Representatives. Then the rest of the state can finally govern themselves instead of being oppressed by large urban populations."

I sort of like the idea of reconfiguring states, to separate out urban areas and make them all more accountable. NYC dominating state government and making rules for upstate (the most egregious recent example being the statewide minimum wage hike) that don't fit--could be a thing of the past. Let people truly get the government they deserve, and no longer have someone else to blame.

Of course, there's always enclaves within enclaves, but nothing's perfect.

"If it's so popular, I am wondering why Trump doesn't start a GoFundMe campaign. Get all the folks just like you, to put up all the money that they think is worthwhile."

Maybe private investment to pay for the wall, and the investors are promised payment in the event that our welfare costs drop by a certain amount. I wonder who would actually take the Feds up on that offer?

Brando said...

"U.S. cities, while generally annoying, actually contribute a lot to our great nation. Even a basket case like Detroit is showing signs of perking up and being a net asset."

You could do walls around parts of cities, at least. I'm not saying people wouldn't be allowed to travel in and out of the gates, only that they'd be subject to inspection as they do it.

Mexico could certainly use further reform. Though it's nowhere near what it was a few decades ago. A lot of that is due to lower birthrates (or that may be another symptom).

mockturtle said...

If it's so popular, I am wondering why Trump doesn't start a GoFundMe campaign. Get all the folks just like you, to put up all the money that they think is worthwhile.

Some of us have discussed that proposal here. I, for one, would be glad to contribute. Tax deductible, of course.

AReasonableMan said...

AJ Lynch said...
Let's be honest for once; the hubbub over who pays for the Wall is just same old same old Imperial City kabuki theater.


For once this is bullshit. Trump made a clear promise, no US taxpayer money for this boondoggle. He should be held to that promise.

Internal enforcement of employment laws is what is required. As ever, you have to kill demand (in this cases employers demand for cheap labor) rather than the supply (supply is endlessly flexible). The drug trade is the ideal comparison here. Cheapskate employers have to weaned off cheap illegal labor by some combination of carrots and sticks.

TestTube said...

Gharie, Brando, while I appreciate your point of view on walling off American Cities, why mess with something that is for the most part working? Big cities are smug, expensive and annoying, but do lots of great stuff for the rest of the country, and are fun to visit from time to time.

Mexico, on the other case, is a basket case, and has been for a long, long time. It may have improved some recently, but "Mexico could certainly use further reform." wins the thread award for understatement.

Plus it would be easier to build the wall around Mexico City. Fewer environmental hurdles, and there would probably be a fair number of rural Mexicans who would support such a wall -- heck, probably help us build it.

Brando said...

"Internal enforcement of employment laws is what is required. As ever, you have to kill demand (in this cases employers demand for cheap labor) rather than the supply (supply is endlessly flexible)."

That would actually work a lot better. As long as the promise of far better paying work than in Mexico exists up here, Mexicans will go to all sorts of lengths to get in here. But if employers have good reason to expect to get caught hiring them and the penalties are severe enough, it won't be worth it. If that demand dries up, a lot of immigrants will self deport.

"Big cities are smug, expensive and annoying, but do lots of great stuff for the rest of the country, and are fun to visit from time to time."

I'm not anti-city per se, I lived in them most of my life, but there are sections that tend to export crime and poverty outside. A secure zone (not necessarily a physical wall) to at least contain the problem while we figure out how to fix it wouldn't be a bad idea. Though it's just an idea; it'd never pass constitutional muster to limit travel within the country.

AJ Lynch said...

ARM:

Did anyone hold Obama to his promise that the AHA would save the average family $2,500 per year on their health insurance premiums?

If so, where do I go to get back my $15,000 [six years x $2,500 savings per year].

Inga said...

All you Trump voters are NOT getting what you were promised. Have any realized this yet? Alt Right are first to feel cheated.

The Wall
Repeal of Obamacare
Muslim/Travel Ban
Hardline with China
Deportation of millions of illegal Mexicans
Tax breaks for the middle class
Millions of jobs returning to the US
America First Policy
Ban of Federal hiring
Dismantling of the Administrative State
Avoidance of foreign entanglements

AJ Lynch said...

So far we got a SCOTUS judge, The Wicked Witch Hillary, for all purposes, is dead, Ded regulations are being cut back, immigration ban WILL GET APPROVED BY HIGHER COURT, mass deportations are coming and illegals are back where they belong in the shadows, tax reform is coming, Obamacare will be gutted, the Wall will get started by the end of this year. I guarantee it.

As a great man once said "Rome was not built in a day.....that is because Trump didn't have that job".

mockturtle said...

It might be cheaper in the long run to just invade Mexico and annex it.

TestTube said...

Chuck,

While a gofundme campaign is a pretty good idea, it has some drawbacks -- unproven at raising funds for large-scale projects, not ideal platform for government projects, due to regulation, not really representative of our nation's view, as a few rich people can fund it disproportinately, and so on.

But here is an out-of-the-box idea: Why not have some guy run for president, with the wall being a key promise in his platform?

To make it even more difficult, we could recruit some off-the wall, no political experience guy as the candidate -- perhaps a reality tv host, or a celebrity with weird hair and a long history of buffoonery and outrageous comments. Of course, we would have a large number of more traditional, well-qualified, experienced candidates in both parties to contrast what a clown this guy is.

Now, if THAT sort of guy could, on some off chance, get elected on a platform of building a wall, then you know a wall is actually pretty popular with the voters.

Just an idea that is so crazy, it might work.

Gahrie said...

It might be cheaper in the long run to just invade Mexico and annex it.

It would certainly be better for the vast majority of the Mexican people. The only reason Mexico is not a prosperous developed nation is its corrupt and inept ruling class.

Vimax Medan said...

OBAT PEMBESAR PENIS BALI

OBAT PEMBESAR PENIS MAKASSAR

PEMBESAR PENIS BATAM

PEMBESAR PENIS MEDAN

PEMBESAR PENIS PEKANBARU

PEMBESAR PENIS BOGOR

PEMBESAR PENIS BATAM

PEMBESAR PENIS CIBINONG

PEMBESAR PENIS SURABAYA


PEMBESAR PENIS CIKARANG

TestTube said...

Inga,

I'm just happy we're getting SOMETHING.

The fact that it has been almost three months and we have not yet been destroyed by nuclear fire, and Judge Judy has not been nominated to the supreme court, nor has Trumphitler yet rounded up all the gays and blacks and Jews, nor forced us to send our high school daughters as tribute to stock his harem and reality shows...

That is enough for now...

Brando said...

"Did anyone hold Obama to his promise that the AHA would save the average family $2,500 per year on their health insurance premiums?"

Not sure you want to use that analogy. Obama's party lost Congress in part due to the ACA, and I doubt ACA proponents are thrilled that they did not save $2500 per year on premiums. The analogy to this is the GOP losing Congress over the wall turning into a fiasco, and the people who thought the wall would be a thing ending up betrayed.

I'm not expecting a wall, not in the "brick and mortar" sense, but I would like to see better border security. Though as noted above, if we don't crack down on hiring the demand will keep bringing them in here, wall or no wall.

"It might be cheaper in the long run to just invade Mexico and annex it."

You can thank a self-important diplomat in the 1840s for not getting us a bigger chunk of Mexico after the war.



cubanbob said...

ARM why not consider eliminating minimum wage laws and require able-bodied adults on welfare to take the jobs illegals are doing? A revised EITC program so to speak.

Chuck apparently doesn't grasp the concept of money being fungible.

buwaya said...

"It might be cheaper in the long run to just invade Mexico and annex it."

Not true. Any colonial power owning a country such as Mexico will quickly find it is a liability. A tremendously huge liability. Puerto Rico x 30 or so.

The modern world has bypassed empires and colonialism because nearly everything one could want out of such conquests, access to resources and markets, can be had through normal trade and the workings of economics within the modern global system guaranteed by the Pax Americana.

The other things sought by old empires, tribute and military manpower, are largely obsolete. Any tribute one could extract from the Mexican people would be absorbed and much more so by the effort to keep them suppressed. Military manpower as such is not relevant to US power, which rests on strategic weapons and the control of the oceans and the air above them.

exiledonmainstreet said...

AJ Lynch said...
So far we got a SCOTUS judge, The Wicked Witch Hillary, for all purposes, is dead, Ded regulations are being cut back, immigration ban WILL GET APPROVED BY HIGHER COURT, mass deportations are coming and illegals are back where they belong in the shadows, tax reform is coming, Obamacare will be gutted, the Wall will get started by the end of this year. I guarantee it.

As a great man once said "Rome was not built in a day.....that is because Trump didn't have that job".

Yeah. Inga keeps telling us how unhappy we should be with Trump. While I'm not happy with a few things he's done, I'd didn't expect to be happy with everything.
I'm grateful every single day I think Hillary the Harridan was kept out of the WH.

It also gladdens my heart to see liberals telling me how unhappy I must be. That is truly enjoyable.

Angel-Dyne said...

Gahrie to mockturtle: "It might be cheaper in the long run to just invade Mexico and annex it."

It would certainly be better for the vast majority of the Mexican people. The only reason Mexico is not a prosperous developed nation is its corrupt and inept ruling class.


No, it wouldn't. The territories the U.S. annexed in the Mex-Am war didn't have a whole lot of Mexicans in them, ruling class or otherwise, to interfere with the imposition of a less corrupt, more competent Anglo government. (The territory was "Mexico" only in the sense that Mexico was the heir of the grandiose claims of the Spanish Empire to New World territory that it had neither the population nor the ability to conquer and settle.) Today, the corrupt and inept ruling class wouldn't disappear after a U.S. annexation of Mexico. They'd just re-surface under the "new" management and carry on as usual. They always do.

It would have no result but to further Mexicanize the U.S., not Americanize Mexico - as is already happening in ostensibly still "American" parts of the U.S.

No thanks.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"The Wall
Repeal of Obamacare
Muslim/Travel Ban
Hardline with China
Deportation of millions of illegal Mexicans
Tax breaks for the middle class
Millions of jobs returning to the US
America First Policy
Ban of Federal hiring
Dismantling of the Administrative State
Avoidance of foreign entanglements "

Not all done in the space of 100 days? Well, that's such a disappointment! Why can't Trump just snap his fingers and get all those things done immediately?

In the meantime, liberals pray to Baal and Moloch that Ginsberg and Kennedy don't keel over...

Chuck said...

TestTube said...
Chuck,
While a gofundme campaign is a pretty good idea, it has some drawbacks -- unproven at raising funds for large-scale projects, not ideal platform for government projects, due to regulation, not really representative of our nation's view, as a few rich people can fund it disproportinately, and so on.
But here is an out-of-the-box idea: Why not have some guy run for president, with the wall being a key promise in his platform?
To make it even more difficult, we could recruit some off-the wall, no political experience guy as the candidate -- perhaps a reality tv host, or a celebrity with weird hair and a long history of buffoonery and outrageous comments. Of course, we would have a large number of more traditional, well-qualified, experienced candidates in both parties to contrast what a clown this guy is.
Now, if THAT sort of guy could, on some off chance, get elected on a platform of building a wall, then you know a wall is actually pretty popular with the voters.
Just an idea that is so crazy, it might work.

Don't get me wrong; I didn't suggest a GoFundMe campaign because I thought it was a good idea, to accomplish a laudable goal. I suggested it because I think that Trump was lying when he promised that Mexico would pay for the wall. And I wanted to throw some shade at the Trump proponents who might want U.S. taxpayers to pay for the wall.

As for your hypothetical about a popular presidential candidate winning an election on a promise building a wall; I voted for Trump because I didn't want a Democrat. And because I wanted the Federalist Society to nominate federal judges and Supreme Court justices.

You left out of your description of your hypothetical candidate the notion that the candidate promised that U.S. taxpayers would not pay for his wall, and that Mexico would pay. Which brings me right back to my original complaint on this page.

Todd said...

OK, how about a compromise?

We get to build this nice big 30 foot wall BUT we build some cut-throughs so water can pass. We install motion and other sophisticated sensing and lot AND LOTS of automatic machine guns into the cut-throughs to prevent anything but water from going through, and lots of signs, HUGE signs.

K?

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

You want a border wall? You pay for it.

Do I get to use this same, dumb, logic on every federal expenditure I don't want to pay for?

Michael said...

I believe once written, ARM, Inga and a few others all missed the discussion of hyperbole in high school. Perhaps they were classmates in a mediocre public school. Or maybe Chuck the literalist was their TA. The dumbest hillbilly understands metaphor and hyperbole and knows that Trump meant the border would become very real indeed. An illegal entrant will be held and returned, tossed back over the fence as it were.

AJ Lynch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

Bushman wins the thread at 1PM!

Inga said...

Lies, otherwise known as "hyperbole" in Trump World. Yes, it's hard to admit you were duped.

Chuck said...

cubanbob said...
ARM why not consider eliminating minimum wage laws and require able-bodied adults on welfare to take the jobs illegals are doing? A revised EITC program so to speak.

Chuck apparently doesn't grasp the concept of money being fungible.

Wait; where do I fit in that comment? I'm not a proponent of minimum wage laws, minimum wage increases, or wider eligibility of welfare benefits. I'd prefer to see Americans doing the jobs that illegals are doing in most cases. I'm not a proponent of any illegal immigration. Any immigration should be job-based. And most of all, I don't want any "pathway to citizenship." I'm not even happy about birthright citizenship.

I do grasp the concept of "money being fungible," and so in a case like Planned Parenthood I question their claims that no taxpayer money goes to funding abortions.

These are standard, unremarkable, serious-minded conservative positions. Unlike building a wall, which is a cartoon-conservative position.

Chuck said...

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
You want a border wall? You pay for it.

Do I get to use this same, dumb, logic on every federal expenditure I don't want to pay for?

Mine was an unserious response, to an even more unserious proposal.

Of course, if we all had an opt-out checkbox for every federal expenditure that we didn't like, federal government would grind to a halt. It takes more, than a simple/simpleton campaign promise, to create national policy with a large budgetary expenditure. It takes an act of Congress. So now, let's see how Congress deals with Trump's promise to build a wall. And now, it seems, pay for it out of the federal treasury. We still have a legislative veto in the Senate. You think that Trump will have nay more success with a border wall, than with health care reform?

AReasonableMan said...

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...
Do I get to use this same, dumb, logic on every federal expenditure I don't want to pay for?


No, just the ones Trump promised that the Mexicans would pay for.

Michael said...

Illegals crossing in Feb down 39% from Jan. March crossings down 36% from Feb
Notice how the invisible wall works?

rcocean said...

"Grant the large urban areas (LA, SF, NY, Chicago etc) a charter. Make them self governing in everything except foreign relations. Give them sole possession of a member ( or several members) of their delegation in the House of Representatives"

It'd be easier just to make NYC and California their own countries. You could attach NYC and long island to New Jersey and make it a new country.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga said...
Lies, otherwise known as "hyperbole" in Trump World. Yes, it's hard to admit you were duped.

4/13/17, 1:13 PM

Nope. Still happy, Inga. Glad the evil old crone is modeling ugly pantsuits and baby pink heels instead.

So sorry to disappoint you!

rcocean said...

Any budget that gives $$ to sanctuary cities or fails to fund a border wall should be vetoed by Trump.

The people have spoken - they want illegal immigration ended.

If McCain and the Democrats want to die on that hill, let them.

AReasonableMan said...

WSJ said...
President Donald Trump said Wednesday he has offered President Xi Jinping more favorable trade terms for Beijing in exchange for help on confronting the threat of North Korea


You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Gahrie said...

It'd be easier just to make NYC and California their own countries

Most of the people in New York state and the state of California are ordinary hardworking patriotic Americans. They don't deserve being abandoned to the dictates of the Progressives in the cities.

It's not blue states versus red states...it's blue cities versus red states.

Brando said...

"It's not blue states versus red states...it's blue cities versus red states."

What about blue people in red places and vice versa? And if the answer is "they should move" then we could also say the same about reds who live in blue states dominated by cities, and blues who live in red states that are not.

Gahrie said...

Unlike building a wall, which is a cartoon-conservative position.

Since when? It wasn't so when President Reagan and a Republican Congress passed legislation for a wall in the 1980's. One of the reasons we're so pissed is because this was just another case of the Democrats getting what they wanted and Republicans getting the football pulled away yet again.

David Baker said...

If you're not watching the news, we just dropped "the mother of all bombs" on a substantial ISIS stronghold in Afghanistan.

Which is significant for a number of reasons, but especially because candidate Trump said - if elected president - he would "bomb the sh*t out of ISIS."

check |/

MarkW said...

While I do favor a wall, a wall won't stop tunnels.

It will make them easier. A solid wall prevents border control agents from seeing what is going on on the Mexican side -- making it easier to get ready to dig (or climb) without being watched.

Also, the flash flood problem isn't just an environmental concern. The wall is not going to be built strongly enough to be a damn. With enough rain, sections of the wall will collapse under the pressure. And if you leave openings for water, obviously they'll become openings for people too.

AReasonableMan said...

Ever wonder whether red or blue team voters are the bigger hypocrites? Or should that be, the most susceptible to scam artists?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Which is significant for a number of reasons, but especially because candidate Trump said - if elected president - he would "bomb the sh*t out of ISIS."

Promise kept. Shit- and all other innards - bombed out of that particular pack of scumbags.

Robert Cook will be here to complain about "war crimes" in no time.

Gahrie said...

the most susceptible to scam artists?

I don't know...what side believes in the AGW hoax?

Which side believes that a fetus isn't human?

buwaya said...

"A solid wall prevents border control agents from seeing what is going on on the Mexican side"

You have the technology to avoid this problem comrade. And the people. A wall is no good without a garrison, which the Chinese knew very well 2500 years ago.

"The wall is not going to be built strongly enough to be a damn"

Is engineering problem comrade. Many, many ways to skin this cat. Make those places where floods would run a steel-slat fence for instance.

mockturtle said...

Wow, I was being tongue-in-cheek about annexing Mexico. But, hey! It could work if we develop the resources and actually occupy the land, not just rule it from DC. It's a beautiful country with great weather, lots of seacoast, etc. Perfect retirement place.

AJ Lynch said...

ARM thinks he is so brilliant. I thought libs like you believed that when the facts changed, it is perfectly alright to change your opinion?

buwaya said...

As for tunnels -

What do you need for a tunnel? Money.

With good patrolling of the border you will need to site your entrances and exits out of sight, and more so during construction, as well as deep enough to evade detection by cheap sensors. The Egypt-Gaza tunnel experience is instructive. These will have to range about 100ft deep and in the US, with buildings rare along the border, a kilometer or more long, probably, to stay undetected by border guards or air patrols.

A good, well constructed undetectable (or difficult to detect) tunnel requires considerable outlay in construction, in construction security, in payoffs, and operational security. If you want to use it to sneak people through they will have to pay, a lot, or why bother. And every one is moreover a security risk, as they can rat out your tunnel. So you will require compensation for your risk.

This can make crossing the border via tunnel expensive. Which reduces the likelihood someone would cross. No wall is going to be perfect, but there is no reason it cannot be good enough.

Sammy Finkelman said...

You culd build a drain for the water. That's not an argument for or against the wall - it's an argument for abetter design.

Brando said...

"Wow, I was being tongue-in-cheek about annexing Mexico. But, hey! It could work if we develop the resources and actually occupy the land, not just rule it from DC. It's a beautiful country with great weather, lots of seacoast, etc. Perfect retirement place."

There are certainly parts of Mexico we'd want--they do have beautiful beaches. There's a lot of Americans who retire there for the nice climate, top notch service and low cost of living.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that buwaya is correct here. We don't need to eliminate all illegal immigration, just a lot of it, and digging tunnels is going to jack the cost of sneaking in quite a bit. Which effects the economics of illegal immigration. I suspect that any tunnels will be used primarily for drug, and maybe gun, smuggling over illegal immigration. More lucrative and easier security plus, we have good access to the best tunnel detection technology in the world, thanks to our good ally Israel, which routinely faces deadly terrorist attacks when they miss tunnels, while we mostly just have to worry about illegal drugs an immigrants.

So what if the wall gets washed out in places, on occasion? It is a numbers game. The goal is to eliminate most of the flow of illegal drugs and immigrants, not all of it, which is neigh impossible. Not all of it, not all the time. Just most of it most of the time. Which is the goal - to make illegal immigration expensive enough that it doesnt usually pay.

Chuck said...

I emailed Althouse a few hours ago with that news of the combat usage of MOAB. And I included for her this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jTzgR-ClB4

Randy Newman was being sarcastic in his brilliant over-the-top style way back in 1972 (the year that the album Sail Away was released). And now, 45 years later in the era of Trump, it's almost necessary to remind folks that Randy was just kidding.

Rick said...

There's a lot of Americans who retire there for the nice climate, top notch service and low cost of living.

Two of these would immediately start to change if we annexed Mexico.

Brando said...

"So what if the wall gets washed out in places, on occasion? It is a numbers game. The goal is to eliminate most of the flow of illegal drugs and immigrants, not all of it, which is neigh impossible. Not all of it, not all the time. Just most of it most of the time. Which is the goal - to make illegal immigration expensive enough that it doesnt usually pay."

But with that being the case, a complete physical "wall" is an overly expensive and inefficient way to achieve this. Best bang for our buck is the hybrid approach of expanding fencing, using radar or other detection devices, and stepping up the patrols (even a big wall won't stop much if we don't have frequent patrolling where the crossers are planning to tunnel/scale). The extra personnel hired should also be used for internal roundups of visa overstays (over 40% of our illegals get in her legally and overstay). And cracking down on employers is essential--as you note, the cost/benefit of an illegal crossing has to change in favor of them not wanting to cross--best way to do that is eliminate their odds of being hired when they get here.

That's if we're serious about the problem.

Brando said...

"Two of these would immediately start to change if we annexed Mexico."

Yep. Though it's moot, we have a better chance of annexing Canada than Mexico.

MarkW said...

"You have the technology to avoid this problem comrade."

Right. So now instead of agents simply looking through a fence or across the river, we now need cameras along thousands of miles of wall. Cameras that will have to be kept in working order. And somehow protected from being taken out by a few well-placed rifle shots. Maybe they can put them behind bulletproof glass...and the smugglers can run along and hit them all with paint-balls.

"Make those places where floods would run a steel-slat fence for instance."

Ah, you mean kind of like along the 1250 miles that the border runs down the Rio Grande Valley? You're aware that's more than half of the whole border, right?

Daniel Jackson said...

I agree that a brick and mortar wall is silly if not "sustainable." A tall steel grid structure, razor wired, well patrolled, and soft sand and gravel access roads (graded daily) is far more efficient. Works well in Israel: https://www.google.fr/search?q=Israel+border+fence+with+Jordan&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizvLKimKLTAhUFBBoKHV2hBqcQ_AUICCgB

Easier to construct and maintain.

True, it is periodically breached by bad-guys and gals; but, then commando snipers follow the tracks, and shoot the illegals in the legs (they scream out warning the others, who retreat the way they came).

As for Mexico paying for the fence, this has always been a laugh. They are broke. Period. The third party effects of deterrence in illegal entries, to say nothing of the drug traffic will pay.

Mr. Trump is not a politician who has to deal, which he is doing with the Chinese over North Korea and to some extent with Russia over Syria. Fine. Politics is about compromise as well as "power" when properly applied. He WANTED this job and most of us did not the other contender mainly because the group she represents does NOT compromise and abuses power.

National defense costs money; but, so does a loss of tax revenues from those who do not pay taxes plus the mandatory services to pay for the expenses of those who do not pay taxes.

Fact is, most Americans do pay taxes and are not happy about the free riders.

Build the wall and replace those 59 cruise units. They're needed.

Martha said...

Thank you Bob Ellison—Advlock solved the problem.

buwaya said...

MarkW,

"we now need cameras along thousands of miles of wall."

You probably do need a large system of networked night-vision cameras. Cameras are cheaper than patrols. Also, where it makes sense, motion sensors. And drones.
And so, someone may indeed shoot at the cameras. Cost of doing business. But to run about shooting at cameras with weapons illegal in Mexico and requiring pull with the local cops, because in Mexico everyone and his brother will know what you are up to - thats another cost/difficulty of crossing. And shot-out cameras should bring out a patrol.

This all is not some ideal system, and it doesn't have to be.

buwaya said...

" along the 1250 miles that the border runs down the Rio Grande Valley?"

Whatever makes sense given the local terrain and the likelihood that significant numbers would use that particular area. Fences, roads, patrols (see Brando above), surveillance systems.

And this should be be dynamic, reacting to whatever locations become popular with border crossers.

sinz52 said...

From the Center for Biological Diversity's tweets, they're not doing this for environmental reasons:

"Walls are the enemy of freedom. That's why we're suing Trump over his plan for a #borderwall. Help us win"

https://twitter.com/CenterForBioDiv/status/852484014795575296

mockturtle said...

Brando proposes: Yep. Though it's moot, we have a better chance of annexing Canada than Mexico.

Who in hell would want to retire to Canada?!

Dude1394 said...

Build it right through the cactus if need be.

mockturtle said...

Great grumbling toads! Take a look at a map of Arizona. Just west of Organ Pipe is the much larger Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge. To the west, a huge Indian reservation. Cabeza Prieta, especially, has been a hot avenue for drug trafficking for many years. Organ Pipe has had part of its park closed off from time to time because of drug traffickers and unsafe conditions. We're talking a yuuuuge desert here, folks. Not some fragile little park. This guy should be tarred and feathered [metaphorically speaking, of course].

buwaya said...

More facts -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-13/heres-where-most-illegal-immigrants-are-getting-caught-crossing-border

Most interesting is the locations where border-crossing apprehensions happen, and the apparent effect of walls/fences. Also, probably, where "the wall" needs to go first. The Easternmost stretch of the Rio Grande Valley seems to have been the hottest spot, but not since Trump -

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-crossings-20170410-story.html

Rusty said...

Scott M said...
"Screw the wall. Pull most of our troops out of Japan and Germany, and from wherever else we can pull them (cough, Afghanistan, cough) and set up permanent bases along the southern border and actively patrol it."

Let's forget for a moment that thre are treaty obligations we must adhere to in both those countries. The Posse Comitatus act prevents regular troops from being deployed inside the United States.

The cost of the national scam like Obama Care doesn't deter ARM, but the cost of a fence does. You seem convinced , ARM, that Mexico won't pay for the wall. What makes you think they won't.

mockturtle said...

Mexican remittance from the US almost $25 billion in 2015, more than oil revenue and about 20% of their total income. So..that would be a good place to start.

US News

mockturtle said...

And they could start by banning remittance from anyone who is here illegally.

cubanbob said...

These are standard, unremarkable, serious-minded conservative positions. Unlike building a wall, which is a cartoon-conservative position."

Chuck where do you get this notion that walls don't work. It worked brilliantly for the East Germans albeit to keep their people in. It works well for the Israeli's keeping Palestinians out. It works well in several East European countries keeping Muslim refugees out. There is nothing cartoonish about building a wall and since most of the illegals come here to earn money to send it back home why yes by keeping them from coming here Mexico will be paying for the wall in practical terms. Like I said, money is fungible.

One thing people advocating for sanctioning employers who hire illegals is that an employer can't first verify status before hiring.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Let the suits begin. With an administration so backward and malevolent that it wants to poison us with lead, chlorpyrifos and asbestos, no amount of environmental or legal action is too much.

Michael K said...

There are certainly parts of Mexico we'd want--they do have beautiful beaches. There's a lot of Americans who retire there for the nice climate, top notch service and low cost of living.

There was a semi-serious idea of annexing Baja California back about 50 years ago. It is almost autonomous and has little connection to the rest of Mexico. Lots of Americans got there to retire and vacation and there is a serious crime problem. It's basically a long narrow peninsula with beaches on both sides.

Michael K said...

By the way, the property owners in southern Arizona would be some of the most enthusiastic about a wall and effective banning of illegal immigration. Most of their land is unusable, especially at night.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rusty said...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"Let the suits begin. With an administration so backward and malevolent that it wants to poison us with lead, chlorpyrifos and asbestos, no amount of environmental or legal action is too much."

Remind me again. Under who's administration did the EPA, in it's unempeachable wisdom, pollute a whole river system-the source of drinking water for many rural comunities- with toxic mine waste? Which included lead, cyanide, and cadmium.
Try being less of a tool.

Conserve Liberty said...

Building the Border Wal requires Eminent Domain taking of property from rightfully-owning American citizens, foe dubious purpose. Wall-jumpers will easily use ladders one foot taller than the wall.

There are more effective ways to deter illegal immigration. Enforcement of existing laws is the simplest, easiest, cheapest, most effective method, and it works immediately.

Gahrie said...

Enforcement of existing laws is the simplest, easiest, cheapest, most effective method, and it works immediately.

The problem is, our political elites refuse to enforce existing laws.