Border walls are no longer racist

[CFordUNC]

Fair enough. Again, I'm not taking a stance on a border wall. I'm more talking about how dysfunctional is politics. Given how the border wall has been portrayed by Harris, and Democrats in general, this "want" vs "willing" is largely a distinction without a difference. Harris has called a border wall unamerican. Other Democrats have called proponents of a border wall racist and a border wall has been described as immoral to inhumane, which means she's willing to support a bill that would implement something that is somewhere, presumably, between unamerican to racist to immoral?

I imagine that people calling a border wall "inhumane" aren't referring to the border wall in and of itself being inhumane, but rather the portions of it that are made of barbed wire and designed to force people to either swim or drown in the Rio Grande. I don't think anyone actually thinks that a physical wall on the border is inhumane. I certainly don't think it's inhumane. I just think it's almost completely ineffective, and I think we have much, much better and more technologically-advanced ways to secure the border.

 

[Enigma94]

Fair enough. Again, I'm not taking a stance on a border wall. I'm more talking about how dysfunctional is politics. Given how the border wall has been portrayed by Harris, and Democrats in general, this "want" vs "willing" is largely a distinction without a difference. Harris has called a border wall unamerican. Other Democrats have called proponents of a border wall racist and a border wall has been described as immoral to inhumane, which means she's willing to support a bill that would implement something that is somewhere, presumably, between unamerican to racist to immoral?

What you describe as dysfunctional I take as being willing to compromise. Most people realize there needs to be a mechanism for controlling immigration. Republicans and Democrats disagree on what many of those items should be. Harris is taking some of what Republicans believe is necessary and including it in service of getting a broader bill done. Would you prefer she come out and say no to every Republican point and get nothing passed or be "dysfunctional" and allow for some things she isn't in favor of to get something accomplished?

 

[CFordUNC]

She expressed support for the bi-partisan border bill during her DNC speech. That bill, if it's the one that was nixed a few months ago, included funding for more border wall.

It predominately included more funding for more border patrol/security personnel and more funding for technologically-based means of securing the border (more drones, more manned surveillance flights, infrared technology, facial recognition and biometric identification, radar, ground sensors, etc.).

 

[superrific]

Problem is, I have a memory. Not a great one, but good enough to remember as far back as to Trump’s presidency. While you might not agree with its validity, the argument that the border wall and anyone that supported its construction were racist has been made many times on these boards, often by the very same usernames that seem to be the most vociferous of Harris supporters.

The real problem isn't memory, it's context. Rodoheel already nailed it, and I will put it a little differently:

The entire idea of a "border crisis" is racist. It's well established that immigration is good for the U.S. Immigrants do not bring crime. They bring necessary labor. They help grow the economy and the tax base. These are all facts. And yet the GOP voters are willing to toss all that out, to hurt our country, because they have darker skin and speak Spanish. Not only are they willing to toss out all the good, they want to spend untold billions of dollars on a giant wall to keep hurting our country in perpetuity.

You might have noticed that Trump doesn't talk much about the wall. It was never a serious idea. It was a symbol. And what it symbolized was the judgment of certain Americans that it would be better to defoul our land with an ecologically destructive and aesthetically contemptuous barrier than to let immigrants do work in the U.S. that American workers don't do.

The fact is, and this is indeed a fact that has been confirmed dozens of times in the political science literature, that support for Trump was always just a matter of racial animus from the very beginning. The voters who gravitated to him as opposed to Cruz or Rubio were people who score very high on surveys measuring racial animus and racist beliefs. Trump support is largest in communities that are becoming browner. Those people are also scared of the future, so they took solace in something they could understand. A wall. Not economics, which is abstract and requires thought. But walls. You know, good old fashioned walls, like the one that Made China Great (it also failed but anyway).

What I don't understand is why people like you are so intimidated and scared about being called racist. You clearly don't care what liberals think of you. You demonstrate that on a daily basis. You don't care what your kids think of you either, or else you wouldn't support so many policies that are basically stiff middle fingers to a younger generation. So why do you care about being called racist? It's who you are. Why do you contort yourself to such an extreme to deny who you are?

 

[farce©]

I hope you were better at football than you are at cheerleading.

CFord nailed your sorry ass with that post.

 

[Geisterfahrer]

Accuse of trolling? Check.
Change/minimize subject of thread? Check.
Backtrack, spin, and excuse? Check.
Question source? Check.

If you just threw in a “MAGAT” or “Trumper”…

7/10

Problem is, I have a memory. Not a great one, but good enough to remember as far back as to Trump’s presidency. While you might not agree with its validity, the argument that the border wall and anyone that supported its construction were racist has been made many times on these boards, often by the very same usernames that seem to be the most vociferous of Harris supporters. As someone who has contunuously supported the construction of a wall as a part of efforts to increase control of illegal immigration, I’d be interested in hearing from those who have made that argument in the past. Do they hide behind the “it’s just a compromise” nonsense, have they changed their opinions on the issue, or are they okay with just a little racism in order to pick up a few votes? That’s a fair question to ask after years of being labeled racist, no?

So what exactly has Kamala said about the border wall? I’m sure your memory still has access to that.

 

[farce©]

She expressed support for the bi-partisan border bill during her DNC speech. That bill, if it's the one that was nixed a few months ago, included funding for more border wall.

So a legislator must agree with 100% of a bill’s contents to support it, huh? Is that what you are inferring? Because we both know that’s bullshit.

 

[Geisterfahrer]

It’s really bizarre that most of the people who post on this board don’t see the “bipartisan bill” for what it was - a desperate attempt to finally take action (after 3 years of inaction) on the border crisis, and remove the Biden/Harris administration’s biggest weakness from being an issue in the 2024 election. It was all politics. Just as the Republicans killing the bill in an election year was also all politics.

You mean 20+ years of inaction. Putting it all on Biden is disingenuous to the point of bad faith.

 

[farce©]

No big deal. Just thought others would like to know before the next immigration thread pops up on here. Some might want to adjust their arguments (at least until the election is over).

https://www.axios.com/2024/08/27/kamala-harris-flip-flops-border-wall

Why don’t you have the balls to post under your IC username (or at least one of them) so we can hold you accountable for your previous nonsense?

 

[KishiKaisei]

Can someone help me with who Croatan was on the ZZLP?

I have a feeling that information will assist me to put this thread in context.

 

[grimes70]

The country was founded by compromise. See Constitution, The.

A whole shitload of life in general is based on compromise. It's how marriages amongst many other things work.

 

[superrific]

Fair enough. Again, I'm not taking a stance on a border wall. I'm more talking about how dysfunctional is politics. Given how the border wall has been portrayed by Harris, and Democrats in general, this "want" vs "willing" is largely a distinction without a difference IF what they're saying is accurate. Harris has called a border wall unamerican. Other Democrats have called proponents of a border wall racist and a border wall has been described as immoral to inhumane, which means she's willing to support a bill that would implement something that is somewhere, presumably, between unamerican to racist to immoral?

It would be much easier, for both parties, to keep rhetoric and finger pointing out of discussions.

IIRC the bill would have appropriated something like $500M for wall construction. That would not be nearly enough to build, well, anything really. Trump spent billions and build 50 miles of wall. People don't realize how expensive such a vast project really would be. Think about how much it costs to build 50 miles of highway. Now consider that, in order to build a wall, first you have to build that much highway (since trucks have to get to the wall site), THEN you have to build the wall. The costs would be on the order of tens of billions of dollars at least.

IOW, the "wall" part of the bill was inconsequential and more appropriately thought of as symbolic outreach to MAGA simpletons. That doesn't make Harris or anyone else "dysfunctional." It just means that they know how to keep their eyes on the prize. The real substance of the bill was the part about immigration judges, asylum restrictions, border closings at peak periods, etc.

Think of it this way. Suppose someone came up to you with a giant suitcase full of cash. He says, "there is one million dollars in this briefcase. I will give it to you on one condition: you must become a devout Muslim and travel across the country singing the praises of Allah. Deal?" Yeah, well, I'm not interested in converting to Islam, but I would take the cash, say "Allahu Akbar" a few times, and notch a win. The wall funding in the bipartisan bill is like that promise to evangelize for Allah: completely unobservable, insufficient and without effect.

 

[ZenMode]

What you describe as dysfunctional I take as being willing to compromise. Most people realize there needs to be a mechanism for controlling immigration. Republicans and Democrats disagree on what many of those items should be. Harris is taking some of what Republicans believe is necessary and including it in service of getting a broader bill done. Would you prefer she come out and say no to every Republican point and get nothing passed or be "dysfunctional" and allow for some things she isn't in favor of to get something accomplished?

Sure. Compromise is how things get done BUT if a border wall is truly racist, unamerican, inhumane, etc, should there be compromise?

Again, reasonable people know that a border wall isn't racist or unamerican, inhumane, etc and calling it such is just part of the toxicity of politics.

 

[CFordUNC]

Sure. Compromise is how things get done BUT if a border wall is truly racist, unamerican, inhumane, etc, should there be compromise?

Again, reasonable people know that a border wall isn't racist or unamerican, inhumane, etc and calling it such is just part of the toxicity of politics.

I recognize that you are at least conversing in good faith, so I'd like to ask you a question in good faith, as well.

Why does it matter so much to you that some people may believe that a border wall is racist, un-American, or inhumane? Some people believe that the moon landing was faked. Those people aren't the ones working on our space exploration program at NASA. What does it matter that some people believe that the border wall is racist, un-American, or inhumane, when the people who are actually working to address the problem that is border security and a broken immigration system at our southern border, get their bills torpedoed all so that one presidential candidate can try to prevent a strong piece of legislation that has bipartisan support passed in an election year? Who cares what the "unreasonable" people think? The "unreasonable" people aren't the ones drafting and trying to pass the legislation.

 

[Enigma94]

Sure. Compromise is how things get done BUT if a border wall is truly racist, unamerican, inhumane, etc, should there be compromise?

Again, reasonable people know that a border wall isn't racist or unamerican, inhumane, etc and calling it such is just part of the toxicity of politics.

Eh, something could be considered unamerican by one side and still be part of a compromise. That's just rhetoric and for people who support Trump they honestly forfeit the right to complain about any kind of bombastic language. I don't believe Harris ever called it racist or inhumane, but I'm interested to see if she actually did that. Link? I mean I'm sure she called Trump racist, because, well duh, but I don't recall her ever calling the wall itself racist.

 

[superrific]

It’s really bizarre that most of the people who post on this board don’t see the “bipartisan bill” for what it was - a desperate attempt to finally take action (after 3 years of inaction) on the border crisis, and remove the Biden/Harris administration’s biggest weakness from being an issue in the 2024 election. It was all politics. Just as the Republicans killing the bill in an election year was also all politics.

1. There is no border crisis. That's just fearmongering. I'm sorry that you have fallen so hard for it.
2. There has been plenty of action from Biden. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. You might have noticed that the administration announced a rule from DHS about limiting access to ports of entry by migrants. That rule has been in the making for two years. That's how long it takes for rulemaking in this country. If you don't know why or how, read about the Administrative Procedure Act. When your eyeballs glaze over and comprehension is not forthcoming (since the APA is a full semester class in the second or third year of law school and that only covers the basic), maybe you can trust the lawyers and/or legal scholars who tell you that's how rulemaking works.

In addition, the rule explicitly relies on the availability of a phone app that allows people to make appointments in advance from hundreds of miles away. Well, that had to be developed. It's not conceptually difficult to do, but the enormous scope, the security concerns, the need for intuitive user interfaces for people who aren't necessarily used to apps -- it takes time. This has been happening behind the scenes.

In addition, the administration has created "rest stops" in Latin America where people can "check in" before arriving at the border. That's where credible fear interviews are taking place, and that reduces the administrative burdens at the border. I'm not sure whether these rest stops are yet functional or in planning, but again these things take time. It's still a positive step.

3. What's really bizarre is that you swallow BS from the liar-in-chief so readily that you're willing to believe that the "border crisis" could be solved in a year or two or three. Trump seems to think he can close the border with a phone call. He can't. For some reason, you believe him.

Why don't you try to educate yourself? You're too young to be set in your ways forever. There's no need to wallow in your current state of "complaining for lack of understanding."

 

[ZenMode]

IIRC the bill would have appropriated something like $500M for wall construction. That would not be nearly enough to build, well, anything really. Trump spent billions and build 50 miles of wall. People don't realize how expensive such a vast project really would be. Think about how much it costs to build 50 miles of highway. Now consider that, in order to build a wall, first you have to build that much highway (since trucks have to get to the wall site), THEN you have to build the wall. The costs would be on the order of tens of billions of dollars at least.

IOW, the "wall" part of the bill was inconsequential and more appropriately thought of as symbolic outreach to MAGA simpletons. That doesn't make Harris or anyone else "dysfunctional." It just means that they know how to keep their eyes on the prize. The real substance of the bill was the part about immigration judges, asylum restrictions, border closings at peak periods, etc.

Think of it this way. Suppose someone came up to you with a giant suitcase full of cash. He says, "there is one million dollars in this briefcase. I will give it to you on one condition: you must become a devout Muslim and travel across the country singing the praises of Allah. Deal?" Yeah, well, I'm not interested in converting to Islam, but I would take the cash, say "Allahu Akbar" a few times, and notch a win. The wall funding in the bipartisan bill is like that promise to evangelize for Allah: completely unobservable, insufficient and without effect.

I'm not labeling any one person dysfunctional but, again, if Harris/Democrats believed that building a wall was truly racist, immoral and unamerican, there would be no compromise.

For example, if Republicans tried to include nullification of the 15th Amendment as part of a border deal, which would actually be unamerican and racist, there would be no compromise on the part of Democrats, right?

 

[CRHeel94]

The wall is largely a boondoggle. A ten foot wall only brings a ladder that is eleven feet. In the process, its made human smuggling a lucrative business, making it an interesting revenue stream for the cartels.

Want to really crack down on illegal immigration? Crack down on employers. Why doesn't that happen? Because the dirty little secret is that the US badly needs that cheap source of labor, of persons willing to do jobs that others won't do. Plus its more appealing to go after the brown people instead of the Americans.

 

[Enigma94]

I'm not labeling any one person dysfunctional but, again, if Harris/Democrats believed that building a wall was truly racist, immoral and unamerican, there would be no compromise.

For example, if Republicans tried to include nullification of the 15th Amendment as part of a border deal, which would actually be unamerican and racist, there would be no compromise on the part of Democrats, right?

Again link to Harris saying it was racist? Also you are toeing the line of trolling by comparing a few throwaway dollars towards a meaningless wall with repeal of the 15th amendment.

 

[CFordUNC]

Again link to Harris saying it was racist? Also you are toeing the line of trolling by comparing a few throwaway dollars towards a meaningless wall with repeal of the 15th amendment.

I am pretty good at scouring the Internet and I have been trying my damnedest to find where Harris called the border wall racist. Can’t find it. I can see where she called it un-American and a “medieval vanity project” when she was in the Senate during the trump administration, but I can’t find any evidence of her calling it racist.