I thought border walls were bad?

[Herdfan]

Biden is working to get something done that you've been begging for at the border, and you bash him for it???

Not bashing him. And he isn't doing anything. He came out today and said he was against the wall and wanted to reallocate the money elsewhere. This is all Mayorkas as @GermanSuplex pointed out.

I'll never understand outrage over someone finally taking a position you support. This is something Conservatives have been screaming for, why TF aren't they praising Biden instead of bashing him? I find it flat out fucking infuriating.

Because we were called just about everything in the book for supporting the wall. Racist, Xenophobic, Ignorant, etc. You name it, we were called it for supporting the wall.

Just want to know what changed and why they now work and do those term still apply when a Dem is doing it.

I think there is fear that they just might work.

I'm still for fixing the root causes and not putting on band-aids.

As am I. But letting anyone come in is not the solution and I don't think the current Administration did enough in the first couple of years to discourage people coming. In fact it was almost like they were encouraging them.

But as I said before, as soon as more Hispanics start voting R, the border will get closed rather quickly. And it is happening.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/05/hispanic-voters-gop-biden/

 

[Nycturne]

Just want to know what changed and why they now work and do those term still apply when a Dem is doing it.

Emphasis mine. This is a somewhat weird question to ask because it assumes a particular motivation behind this, and also assumes that people on the left will follow in the footsteps of the party leader.

Obama and Biden’s immigration policies were never something I agreed with. I don’t think anything has truly changed here, as both of them have been

But the fundamental disagreement here is if closing the borders will actually solve the underlying issue. There’s definitely a philosophical underpinning on different approaches to dealing with a refugee influx. Where folks like you lose me is the idea that using the stick is the right approach, or that the refugees and organized crime are somehow inseparable. Under Obama and Trump we’ve been getting “tough” on these folks but it hasn’t been a deterrent. Is there a point where it will work? Do we need to murder (state-sanctioned or not) border crossers? Will they actually see that as a deterrent, or will they see it like Matt Damon in Interstellar and go “those are the best odds I’ve had all day?”

 

[MEJHarrison]

Because we were called just about everything in the book for supporting the wall.

I'd say that's about motivations. Even if Biden does move forward with this, the reasons for him doing so are absolutely different.

Just want to know what changed

It sounds like the ability to take the wall money and use it elsewhere is what changed.

and why they now work

Regardless of what happens today, walls are as effective today as they were yesterday. Whether or not they work isn't changing. The thing that might be changing is the construction moving forward.

and do those term still apply when a Dem is doing it.

Those terms would apply if they apply. If democrats are screaming about all the rapists and murderers crossing the boarder, then you might not be out of line with those terms. If the goal is the spend the money because it's already been allocated and it will at least create jobs, I wouldn't see those terms applying.

Building a wall doesn't make you a bad person. Building it to keep out undesirables does. We have nothing against wall builders in general.

 

[Yoused]

Just want to know what changed and why they now work

I suspect that one of the things that changed was probably that floating-barbed-barrels-in-the-river atrocity that Abbott was touting. At least a wall is not literally designed to murder people.

 

[Edd]

The original thread intention feels like the normal troll from Herdfan.

However, my understanding is that El Paso, TX may be dealing with roughly 2000 people/day crossing the border. That must be addressed

 

[mac_in_tosh]

Because that half don't believe it was an insurrection.

That may be the case, because they are simply uneducated, only exposed to right wing disinformation or intent on following their cult leader no matter what. But let's review the facts. A violent mob broke into the Capitol to disrupt the peaceful transition of power in order to keep in power the guy that lost the election. They also were looking for specific people to kill. Just imagine what would have happened had they been more successful. With Congress out of commission, Trump would have declared martial law and that would be the end of the government as we know it. So you may say, correctly, that those people don't believe it was an insurrection (and I vaguely recall you promoting that same idea but could be wrong) but that doesn't change the fact that it was.

From Merriam-Webster: insurrection is an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

 

[Citysnaps]

From Merriam-Webster: insurrection is an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

So it wasn't an expression of "legitimate political discourse" as it's been characterized by the Rs starting 2+ years ago?

 

[Herdfan]

Emphasis mine. This is a somewhat weird question to ask because it assumes a particular motivation behind this,

Because we have been told since Trump proposed building a wall that walls don't work. So if the position is they don't work, why are we building one? What has changed to make them work now?

But the fundamental disagreement here is if closing the borders will actually solve the underlying issue. There’s definitely a philosophical underpinning on different approaches to dealing with a refugee influx. Where folks like you lose me is the idea that using the stick is the right approach, or that the refugees and organized crime are somehow inseparable. Under Obama and Trump we’ve been getting “tough” on these folks but it hasn’t been a deterrent. Is there a point where it will work? Do we need to murder (state-sanctioned or not) border crossers? Will they actually see that as a deterrent, or will they see it like Matt Damon in Interstellar and go “those are the best odds I’ve had all day?”

As I noted earlier, there have been as many encounters since Biden took office as there were in the previous 14 years. So yes, something has to be done and at this point I would be for almost any deterrent.

I do think a physical barrier will work to a high degree. Will it keep 100% out, no it won't. But it will certainly stop this:

 

[Citysnaps]

Because we have been told since Trump proposed building a wall that walls don't work. So if the position is they don't work, why are we building one? What has changed to make them work now?

It's my understanding the money has already been appropriated for that purpose and apparently can't be used for anything else. At that point, why not?

 

[Herdfan]

It's my understanding the money has already been appropriated and apparently can't be used for anything else. At that point, why not?

Well maybe ask Congress for permission to re appropriate it.

And not every dime that has been appropriated needs to be spent. That is one reason we have a $33T national debt.

 

[Citysnaps]

Well maybe ask Congress for permission to re appropriate it.

And not every dime that has been appropriated needs to be spent. That is one reason we have a $33T national debt.

Apparently Biden tried to get the trump money reappropriated by Congress but they wouldn't go for that.

So you're OK with no extra border wall?

 

[Herdfan]

So you're OK with no extra border wall?

At this point I would be happy for ANYTHING to be done.

Would I prefer a wall, yes. But am willing to look at other proven options.

 

[Citysnaps]

At this point I would be happy for ANYTHING to be done.

Would I prefer a wall, yes. But am willing to look at other proven options.

Well... I guess you'd have to look towards Congress for not reappropriating the money.

 

[Roller]

Because we have been told since Trump proposed building a wall that walls don't work. So if the position is they don't work, why are we building one? What has changed to make them work now?

That’s a reasonable question. I have never thought a wall along the entire border, which Trump advocated, would work. I’m not a fan of the much smaller wall that’s planned now, either, though it may be effective in the short term with the flood of immigrants.

What’s really needed is comprehensive immigration reform, but that’s not going to happen with Republicans running the House. As I’ve said before, they have no interest in governing.

There’s also such a stark contrast between Biden’s and Trump’s view of immigration and the border. Biden (and Democrats) want to find a solution that recognizes our history as a refuge for people escaping from poverty and oppression, with the understanding that we can’t and shouldn’t admit everyone.

On the other hand, Trump began his administration with a ban on all Muslims, talked about people from ****hole countries, and has no regard for immigrants or anyone who isn’t Donald Trump.

 

[Yoused]

It's my understanding the money has already been appropriated for that purpose and apparently can't be used for anything else. At that point, why not?

The "why not" is the part that Mayorkas is allowing to be bypassed. There are definite ecological detriments that make walls a bad idea. It was not getting built because of impact reviews.

Also, a wall is just a bad look, from either side – makes the US look bad to everyone else, and is little more than security theater for Americans, imbuing in us the impression the obviously-idiotic approaches are worth trying (though it kind of seems like that ship sailed long ago).

 

[Citysnaps]

The "why not" is the part that Mayorkas is allowing to be bypassed. There are definite ecological detriments that make walls a bad idea. It was not getting built because of impact reviews. Also, a wall is just a bad look, from either side – makes the US look bad to everyone else, and is little more than security theater for Americans.

My "why not" was more rhetorical. Wondering how the Rs in the House would get frothed up gaming out the pros/cons and consequences, for them and Biden, depending on what they decide to do. I suspect Biden could be thinking the same thing.

Personally, I'm not for walls. As is Biden.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I remember a time when republicans (along with everyone else) would mention people risking their lives to come here as an example of American exceptionalism. Now those people risking their lives are vilified.

There really needs to be talk about very separate issues - the illegal border crossings and undocumented are one issue, but the refugees coming here legally for help is a different issue, and they’re often lumped into together as “immigration” or “the border”, when each need different approaches.

I’ve not seen anything comprehensive on either side to address the issue - one side does little and the other side wants outdated physical barriers. Neither is viable imo. But this is one of the few areas where republicans have an edge because they’ve been beating the drum on this for a long time.

 

[Eric]

At this point I would be happy for ANYTHING to be done.

The fact that you started this thread to trash Biden for something he's finally done to make something happen would suggest otherwise. This claim is 100% grade A partisan bullshit.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

So it wasn't an expression of "legitimate political discourse" as it's been characterized by the Rs starting 2+ years ago?

Nor was it a tour group visiting the Capitol.

 

[GermanSuplex]

You know what? Republicans could use a marginal victory right now. I'll let them have this one. Maybe Biden just felt bad for them and said "Can't we give these starving political orphans a little something to tide them over before next week? They're suffering..."