April 4, 2017: deadline for bids on "I'm gunna build a wall."

[sear]

Donald Trump campaigned for the U.S. presidency making extravagant if vague* promises.
One such promise was to build a wall of exclusion on the U.S. / Mexico border that would keep illegal aliens out, and that Mexico would pay for.

Well the Republican controlled congress has already buckled to that lie, and has begun designating funds to begin the Trump wall project.

Any predictions?
Any preferences?

* What the $#@! does "drain the swamp" mean?

[jimnyc]

Donald Trump campaigned for the U.S. presidency making extravagant if vague* promises.
One such promise was to build a wall of exclusion on the U.S. / Mexico border that would keep illegal aliens out, and that Mexico would pay for.

Well the Republican controlled congress has already buckled to that lie, and has begun designating funds to begin the Trump wall project.

Any predictions?
Any preferences?

* What the $#@! does "drain the swamp" mean?

You say CONGRESS is denying funding and whatever is needed for the wall - but then calling Trump a liar.

Obama lied ENDLESSLY throughout his terms if that's the case. But we both know it's not. He's got initial funding and is working towards more. It's NOT something he has now changed his mind on. This is congress getting in the way as usual.

[sear]

"He's got initial funding" jc

Not from Mexico he doesn't.

Lookit:
If we'd run a surplus whether Trump builds his wall or not, it might not be worth such a fuss.

But we're $20 $Trillion in $debt. And Trump has bait-n-switched us.

We've already got a wall.

And we've got more immediate federal spending priorities.

[jimnyc]

"He's got initial funding" jc

Not from Mexico he doesn't.

Lookit:
If we'd run a surplus whether Trump builds his wall or not, it might not be worth such a fuss.

But we're $20 $Trillion in $debt. And Trump has bait-n-switched us.

We've already got a wall.

And we've got more immediate federal spending priorities.

He was clear MANY times that what he meant by having Mexico pay was - by getting the money back via trade, remittances, and things like confiscations.

Yes, OF COURSE we need many other things. And many of us feel having a secure border, and one that will help stem the flow of illegals, IS important and good for our nation. Approx $15 billion is a drop in the bucket in comparison. Better than $80 billion or whatever it was to bailout a failing company. I suppose everyone has priorities.

[sear]

"he meant by having Mexico pay was - by getting the money back via trade, remittances, and things like confiscations."

One of two things is true.
Either Trump will divert a pre-existing revenue stream, or he'll create one.

You present the impression he'll divert.

Well ?!
What's the difference between that and the U.S. paying for it? Trump campaigned on it like it would not impact existing revenues.
Now it seems like a bill of goods.

"Yes, OF COURSE we need many other things. And many of us feel having a secure border"

I don't have the quantifications.

But our Southern border is already well fortified.

Does it really make sense to double-lock the front door, and leave the back door open?

Our Northern border is virtually un-guarded.

I'm all for security.
But this is not the optimal expenditure in that regard.

And please bear in mind, even if Trump ALSO builds a wall between U.S. & Canada, that still leaves thousands of miles of coastline. Gunna build walls there too?

[Balu]

Donald Trump campaigned for the U.S. presidency making extravagant if vague* promises.
One such promise was to build a wall of exclusion on the U.S. / Mexico border that would keep illegal aliens out, and that Mexico would pay for.

Well the Republican controlled congress has already buckled to that lie, and has begun designating funds to begin the Trump wall project.

Any predictions?
Any preferences?

* What the $#@! does "drain the swamp" mean?
This is rather common practice to mark and defend the borders between the Continental countries by fortification and engineering means. The most known example - The Great Wall China. You also might have known about the Berlin Wall. http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

[sear]

This is rather common practice to mark and defend the borders between the Continental countries by fortification and engineering means." B #6

Yes.
The Maginot line. I remember. I think we all remember how well that worked out.

"The most known example - The Great Wall China."

And reportedly the only single man-made structure that can be seen with the naked eye from orbit.

But we should dismiss it.
The only ones trying to break into China are the North Koreans.
And Trump wants his wall to be transparent enough so our LEO on the U.S. side can see if there's criminal activity being conducted on the other side.

In the 3rd Millennium the Great Wall of China is more about tourism than national security.

"You also might have known about the Berlin Wall. http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

B #6
An interesting example for several reasons.

Trump wants his wall to keep illegals out.
The Soviets wanted their wall to keep Soviet subjects in.

More importantly it was a prominent if not the most vivid symbol of the totalitarian Hell hole. Is that the same kind of symbolism you want for the United States of America?

I'm not saying it's the most secure regime.

But in this 3rd Millennium, in this era of TSA pat-downs etc, I find it quaint, perhaps charming that the U.S. has so many thousands of miles of border with Canada on land and [inland] sea, that are barely marked at all.

[Balu]

Yes.
The Maginot line. I remember. I think we all remember how well that worked out.


The lines of the Maginot, Mannerheim were not state borders either in terms of design, location, or purpose. You'd better read, then you will know.
The experience of Israel is a good example to make it clear what your President want and I read that they will assist Americans in this.

http://dpchas.com.ua/sites/default/files/u10210/stena-na-ganice-rossii-i-ukrainy.jpg

[sear]

"The lines of the Maginot, Mannerheim were not state borders either in terms of design, location, or purpose." b #8

Partially true. I'll give you two out of three on it; a passing grade.
The purpose was defense in both cases.
Maginot against military invasion.
Trump against illegal immigration.
Either way, they're both potential examples that $billions can be spent on a defense, and then easily circumvented.

NEWS FLASH:
Even if Trump builds exactly the wall he promised, it will NOT put an end to illegal immigration in the United States.
Many immigrants to the U.S. from elsewhere enter legally, and over-stay their visa; rendering them illegal aliens.
And most of the U.S. / Canadian border is not only not fenced, but not even adequately guarded.
Same story with our thousands of miles of coastline, most of it rural, unpopulated.

"You'd better read, then you will know." b

You have assumed the absurd, and attributed to me.
That's a bad idea.
The next time you do that, you'll look as foolish as you look this time. You inferred what I neither asserted nor implied.

"The experience of Israel is a good example to make it clear what your President want and I read that they will assist Americans in this." b #8

sear had been advocating Israel build a wall, years before ground was broken on it.

BUT !!

Your comment, though relevant, is an imperfect analogy.
For one, the wall of protection between Israel and Palestine protects in a substantially urban environment.

The desert terrain Trump's wall will have to traverse is subject to transients; sand-dune migration for example.
In addition, portions of the U.S. / Mexico border are water or river-bed.

That introduces engineering, environmental, international law complications.

Shall we build Trump's wall in the middle of the river? Or on one shore? If one shore, which shore?
If we did that wouldn't we be ceding territory to Mexico? Putting OUR land on THEIR side of the wall?

[jimnyc]

One of two things is true.
Either Trump will divert a pre-existing revenue stream, or he'll create one.

You present the impression he'll divert.

Well ?!
What's the difference between that and the U.S. paying for it? Trump campaigned on it like it would not impact existing revenues.?

We get $10 from Mexico. Then we tell them we now want fifty dollars in trade. That 40 dollar difference is a revenue stream, but one we didn't have. Not hard.