Posted on Feb 15, 2019
Texas lawmakers propose funding border wall on their own
4.2K
99
38
18
18
0
the governor of California and many Democrats have gone native. Here we are sending US troops to defend the Baltic states, Poland and members of NATO against Russian foreign aggression but we can't even defend our own borders because of political misperception of immorality or whatever it's called from different Democrat leaders. I know we can't build a wall in many parts of the Rio Grande because of the river cutting through some deep Canyons. Still, there are many places that have nightly chicken runs of illegals from all over the world not just Spanish speaking and Portuguese speaking countries. The Republic of Texas is now going to flex its muscles. I wouldn't be surprised the ACLU and other groups are going to try to stop this progress. I guess some Liberals are going to have to buy a membership at Costco because they're going to be buying lots of Kaopectate and Depends. My opinion is if you go native, you are immoral!
Republic of Texas is exercising it's right and let's see if they can get a consensus to get this done. I can't believe that Democrats had more common sense 25 years ago when President Clinton started operation gatekeeper and mobilize the National Guard to protect the Southern Border.
Republic of Texas is exercising it's right and let's see if they can get a consensus to get this done. I can't believe that Democrats had more common sense 25 years ago when President Clinton started operation gatekeeper and mobilize the National Guard to protect the Southern Border.
Texas lawmakers propose funding border wall on their own
Posted from foxnews.com
Democrats
Ethics
Donald Trump
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 12
6
6
0
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
MSG (Join to see) Look, a wall was a dumb idea from the get go. Sensors and technology could have done the same thing back in 2017 but Trump had to have HIS wall. Now we're paying for that mistake and will for decades. You were in the military long enough to understand that we will make do with what we've got for as long as possible. If this whole thing hadn't become political DHS would have done what was necessary to protect the border, secure is never going to happen.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen -
Sensors and technology have limited value if you don't have overwhelming numbers of agents that can appear anywhere along the border within a few minutes to detain the people crossing into the USA. We don't have that and the cost would far exceed a wall.
That is the reason why every single location that you either want to keep people in or out has a wall/fence in addition to sensors and technology.
You are familiar with many military bases such as MacDill AFB. Despite having roaming personnel, armed security at gates, and sensors, they have a fence.
The WH has the same, roaming personnel, sensors, and a fence.
When the riot occurred at Congress last year, they put up a fence, manned it with armed personnel, and maintained armed personnel inside and roaming the area.
If technology advances to the point that people can be kept out of the USA at non-designated areas, then an argument can be made that fences/walls are not necessary. As it is, over 1.5 million people have entered the USA illegally in just 1 year.
I think that if every single illegal alien that entered the Country stayed only in Blue States, Democrats would be far more eager to find a solution to the problem.
Sensors and technology have limited value if you don't have overwhelming numbers of agents that can appear anywhere along the border within a few minutes to detain the people crossing into the USA. We don't have that and the cost would far exceed a wall.
That is the reason why every single location that you either want to keep people in or out has a wall/fence in addition to sensors and technology.
You are familiar with many military bases such as MacDill AFB. Despite having roaming personnel, armed security at gates, and sensors, they have a fence.
The WH has the same, roaming personnel, sensors, and a fence.
When the riot occurred at Congress last year, they put up a fence, manned it with armed personnel, and maintained armed personnel inside and roaming the area.
If technology advances to the point that people can be kept out of the USA at non-designated areas, then an argument can be made that fences/walls are not necessary. As it is, over 1.5 million people have entered the USA illegally in just 1 year.
I think that if every single illegal alien that entered the Country stayed only in Blue States, Democrats would be far more eager to find a solution to the problem.
(2)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
MSG (Join to see) I'm also familiar with the 15 in 5 concept backed up by 30 in 20. Those didn't require any additional personnel above normal manning.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen -
Have you heard of any plans from MacDill or any other major military base planning to do away with walls and fences and use only sensors and technology for the stated purpose that it would be more effective?
When it comes to the border and surrounding area, there are insufficient personnel to properly man it. It frequently results in a hit or miss situation where people enter undetected.
Where there are no walls or fences, large groups or individuals can travel miles on foot before anyone is able to reach the initial breach area, much less locate the people within the USA. The problem then becomes, that many cannot simply be returned across the border, causing more issues with an overloaded system.
Have you heard of any plans from MacDill or any other major military base planning to do away with walls and fences and use only sensors and technology for the stated purpose that it would be more effective?
When it comes to the border and surrounding area, there are insufficient personnel to properly man it. It frequently results in a hit or miss situation where people enter undetected.
Where there are no walls or fences, large groups or individuals can travel miles on foot before anyone is able to reach the initial breach area, much less locate the people within the USA. The problem then becomes, that many cannot simply be returned across the border, causing more issues with an overloaded system.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Easy way around all this is to declare a war with Mexican cartels - much like war on terror - thus the need to crack down on the border. If Mexico - corrupt politicians disagree - they become combatant(s). If we can fight an ideology half way around the world - a war on the border seems plausible.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-07-17/the-us-should-go-to-war-with-mexico-over-opioids
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/mexican-presidents-implicated-bribery-scandals-during-el-chapos-trial
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-07-17/the-us-should-go-to-war-with-mexico-over-opioids
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/mexican-presidents-implicated-bribery-scandals-during-el-chapos-trial
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
LTC (Join to see) this will become an interesting development, since POTUS claims he will declare an emergency situation.
(5)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
The declaration of Emergency will stick. The redirection of funds will be struck down by the Supreme Court. One big reason is he chose not to redirect funds within the same area of the budget. Instead he is pulling funds from the area of trade and moving them over to border security. Nobody on the Supreme Court is going to support that kind of move and I am not sure why POTUS choose it instead of a more subtle move of funds.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SPC Erich Guenther - I believe you are right on what will happen here. He was given an amount of money by Congress that they were willing to levy taxes for to deal with this situation. He doesn't like that number and is taking money Congress levied for other purposes to do this. It is unlikely to survive SCOTUS review. The interesting bit may be who they decide has standing to pursue the case. The SCOTUS doesn't like taking up battles between branches, it may have to come from someone who's land is being taken by eminent domain or would be a beneficiary of the redirected money.
I think he is taking money from where he is so he can claim Mexico is somehow paying for it.
I think he is taking money from where he is so he can claim Mexico is somehow paying for it.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google