Is a border wall an archaic answer to illegal migrants?
Yes
Side Score: 3
|
 |
No
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Yes. In basic principle it is archaic, while also illegal to stop a person by intentionally placing obstacles in there way when they are running for their lives. While at the same time it is not conducive to republican to predict a verdict of guilty on a group of people who may really want to go home but cannot. I like the Idea of a Canal. We are not cutting off Mexico we are joining the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean. World’s tallest buildings has been overdone. Side: Yes
Absolutely. We need protection from PROFFESSIONAL DRUG Dealers and Terrorists. A wall will not even slow them down. Billions of dollars to stop immigrants from escaping oppression? STUPID! There aren't that many, they do little damage. Put the money into the DEA and Coast Guard. Dealers and terrorists have PLANES, submarines, fake passports, determination. Walls will not stop ANY of those ... especially determination! Side: Yes
|
What's needed is a 20' high spiked wall with deep foundations (to stop the filth from burrowing underneath), then a one mile wide mine field with another fence of electrified razor wire. The above should be supplemented with watch towers with heavily armed border guards ready to mow down any of the invading hordes of filth who manage to circumvent the barriers. If a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well. Side: No
O.K. The dangerous ones will stop that easy way and take the mildly more expensive (and harder to detect) way and go around it. Do we really want to spend BILLIONS to stop "peasants"? What we want to stop is those with the MONEY! A wall is an insignificant obstruction to them. A VERY SIGNIFICANT expenditure for U.S.! THEY will use technology to defeat it, WE should also! Side: Yes
|
