I can hardly imagine any benefit by fortifying and guarding a wall between USA and Mexico. It only reminds me on medieval times. Is murica just backward?

and what were medieval walls good at?
Keeping out the unwanted since the walls were closed there's a reason they were good.

Keeping out the unwanted

neither worked in the past nor in the presence. furthermore who is unwanted, an entire country or ethnicity?

Depends on who is encroaching upon you at the time.

so the wall is build to keep americans in? doesnt work either..

Well I'm not sure why one would go to Mexico anyway in it's current state to begin with.

On the short term, it creates loads of jobs.

I refuse to argue because you are stupid

so the wall is build to keep americans in?

Honestly yeah, probably.

Well I'm not sure why one would go to Mexico anyway in it's current state to begin with.

It's not as if the entire country is in ruins. I lived in mexico for a few years, and it's actually really nice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arroyo_(creek)

Because of these it's not that feasible.

Anyway, 10 foot wall, 11 foot ladder, yeah it's not gonna even work that well on parts where it is feasible.

A wall will stop illegals from coming in and sucking money from us from the welfare system.

A wall will cost a few billion to build and maintain eac year...


Illegal immigrants will suck tens of billions more by way of the welfare system.

A wall can't stop illegals from coming in entirely, but it will stop the vast majority.

Berlin Wall is proof, only a few thousand crossed the wall, out of millions.

Edited 10/28/2016 14:33:17

stop illegals from coming in and sucking money from us from the welfare system

Illegals benefit from the US welfare system? Do you mean the nice stay in prison, when they are caught or the free ticket back when they are deported?

Illegal immigrants will suck tens of billions more by way of the welfare system.

do you have any proof for this statement?

Berlin Wall is proof, only a few thousand crossed the wall, out of millions.

Interesting quote, so you only need more watch towers and self-shooting-devices. do you want to imply that there is an ideological issue with mexico?

Here's the man giving a very clear plan.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/19/trump_on_border_maybe_theyll_call_it_the_trump_wall.html

If you fast forward to the last 10 seconds, he proposes a solution that anyone could use to defeat the wall...

^

Illegals don't get welfare because if they applied for it, they'd be caught as illegals.

The Economist said it will cost $15 billion to $25 billion to *build*, and that doesn't even include maintenance.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/07/daily-chart-16

If you want to disagree with the most trusted news source, that's all fine with me. Go cite a Fox News article which is basically just as well trusted across the board.



+1 MGSB. 10 foot wall, 11 foot ladder. 30 foot wall, 31 foot ladder.

Also, what about all the parts where they can't build, on the river? They're going to have to slice through some more private property using eminent domain, like they've done before. This harms American families which goes against what the wall stands for.

It won't stop drugs. Cannons, catapults, even a good throw, can get them over. Don't forget tunnels, as well. (Even more money wasted if you maintain underground stuff).

Finally, how will Donald Trump make Mexico pay for it?

^^^ LMAO that is so true

Edited 10/28/2016 16:25:28

@Ox going by the graph, The Wall Street Journal is the most trusted, not the economist.

neither worked in the past nor in the presence.

Actually, border walls have a surprisingly good success rate at keeping away the unwanted. As already mentioned, the Berlin Wall, as well as the Great Wall of China and for just about a couple thousand years so did the Theodosian walls. And some of these stopped invaders that actually shoot, bomb and ram them - a border wall between the US and mexico would probably have way lower maintenance.

furthermore who is unwanted, an entire country or ethnicity?

Neither - more like anyone or anything that shouldn't go in unadvertedly.

so the wall is build to keep americans in?

Yes. It's a win-win, the US cages itself and stops putting their finger where they weren't called and the illegal immigration is put to a halt. If anyone has to lose it's the guy who is trying to leave illegally. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@ranek, im not a trump guy but ur acting like a wall means no mexicans will be allowed to immigrate, which is untrue.

Edited 10/28/2016 19:56:00

@Ox going by the graph, The Wall Street Journal is the most trusted, not the economist.

No, they colour it if it is (see note) "percent who trust is significantly different from the percent who distrust". This means, in layman terms: it is pretty certain (probably more than 95%) that more people trust than distrust. This is the case for the Wall Street Journal in all 5 categories, but only in 4 for the Economist (we can't reasonably prove that more consistently conservative people trust it than distrust it)

However, the ranking is based on the absolute difference over all people. So the difference in the percentage that trust the Economist rather than distrust is higher than for the Wall Street Journal.

To illustrate, image the percentage differences would be something like this (as an example, the real numbers can probably be found somewhere)

                     Total  Clib  Mlib  Mixd  Mcon  Ccon
The Economist          50%   68%   74%   60%   46%   02%
Wall Street Journal    40%   31%   45%   47%   41%   36%

While the total is lower for the Wall Street Journal, it is still proven to be more trusted than distrusted over all categories.

Now, Ox's statement is also wrong.

If you want to disagree with the most trusted news source, that's all fine with me. Go cite a Fox News article which is basically just as well trusted across the board.

(1) It is not proven that The Economist is the most trusted news source.
Then what is it:
(a) It was the news source with the biggest difference between trust and distrust. It could be 60% trusted and 10% distrusted, for a difference of 50%. But maybe BBC was 70% trusted and 25% distrusted. This would make BBC more trusted (but also more distrusted).
(b) In this sample! There is no proof that this difference is significantly larger than that of BBC. There is only proof that the difference is bigger than 0.
(2) Fox News is NOT basically just as well trusted across the board.
(a) Both for The Economist and Fox (and many others) it was proven that across the board more people trust them than distrust them. Again, it's about the difference between trust and distrust, not about trust itself.
(b) It is not clear and not shown whether the trust-distrust difference is significantly different between The Economist and Fox, but it may be! So while both are different from 0, one may still be much larger than the other.
(c) Even if the trust-distrust difference is not significantly different, then we simply cannot claim that there is a difference. The Economist may still have a higher trust-distrust difference, but we simply may not have been able to prove this with the study.
(d) In the sample, The Economist clearly has a better trust - distrust percentage, the difference in ranks is pretty large.

This is all statistics, please do not try to lightly interpret it and popularize it without understanding it, you would be no better than our politicians and journalist. If you want to prove a point, use the statistics correctly. But to do that, you may need to follow a class at university level.

I want to make it clear that I wasn't being serious at all when I said that Fox News is as reliable as The Economist. I don't know if you could pick up on that.