|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
That seems like a really low bar to set for the cost involved.
How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?
Is a wall our best option?
Honestly, I just have to roll my eyes whenever someone brings up the cost. The Government Accountability Office publishes an annual report showing that fraud, waste, and abuse in the government is enough to pay for many many many walls.
The Green New Deal costs enough to pay for 1000 walls.
It doesn't matter how else the money might be spent. Even if you could make an argument that there are more effective measures of border control....none of them are permanent. That's a unique feature of a wall, and it's kind of a dealbreaker. Voters have been misled on immigration too many times, going back to Reagan. If you pass a bill that puts sensors, patrols, and drones on the border....how am I to know that the next president won't just cut the funding for those things and leave the border unsecure again?
You can't un-build a wall.
And frankly, effectiveness and cost SHOULD NOT MATTER AT ALL. These are bogus, feckless, diversionary arguments. The election of 2016 was largely a referendum on Immigration. The winning candidate had a wall as the top plank in his platform. America voted for a wall. All the counter arguments about costs, necessity, effectiveness, and other measures were aired. The debate already happened. All opinions were heard, and a vote was taken. America voted for a wall. Democracy has spoken. The POTUS has a mandate to build the fucking thing.
Anyone who thinks that they have an argument stronger than that is just a desperate narcissist.
|
Reply With Quote