America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Would switching to an infrastructure building plan from a wall building plan be an acceptable compromise?

Both parties agree that our bridges, highways and dams are in serious need of repair. A comprehensive plan could be less expensive than the wall, employ hundreds of thousands of Americans and boost the economy...

No, wall, fence, barrier, minefield, infrastructure, etc, it does not mater what we call it, but the requirement for the wall is controlling our borders.

Add legislation to levy huge fines on individuals/companies that knowingly hire illegals to fund the border improvement.

Do you know the definition of, "compromise" hint, it's not substitute.

Infrastructure is already accounted for from federal taxes, road tolls, and other "fees" such as licensing .....Infrastructure is not Border Security

It’s not worth discussing when the lefts idea of compromise is capitulation by the POTUS.

https://youtu.be/SMJdDwQlcc8

This is what we get from the left. At some point blood will be on their hands

I think Deadeyes number sound about right. Did that include electrical infrastructure?

Or buying ice cream or not spending the money at all.

Let me lee you out:

That's a weird stance macs. We "can" do everything necessary to protect our sovereignty. We also "can" do absolutely nothing at all. We "can" do something in the middle. We "can" build a wall. We "can" do some other activities which may be cheaper and more effective than a wall.

You assume in your statement that a "wall" is equal to "everything necessary to protect our sovereignty"... which isn't proven. You also assume that your priorities should be the ones we go with. It's a nation of many ideas. Through our governance we decide which of many priorities we should act on. Some people want a wall. Some people want to spend that money on something else.

You don't get a wall by screaming loudly and shutting down the government.
You get a wall by convincing enough people that a wall has value equal to the cost in $$ and public opinion.

Doesn't matter if it's 0.0001% of the budget.

I'll take it that cons believe the border security problems outweigh infrastructure problems...preferring to spend money on a wall but ignore potentially deadly infrastructure problems ...like bridge collapses that could kill hundreds...or dam failures that could wipe out whole towns of Americans...


does anybody know the number of people killed due to infrastructure failure compared to those killed by illegal immigrants?

I'll take it that dems believe that supporting illegals outweighs infrastructure problems...preferring to spend money on thieves but ignore potentially deadly infrastructure problems...like bridge collapses that could kill hundreds... or dam failures that could wipe out whole towns of Americans who are here legally...

Barrier.
It's a barrier.
Remember: compromise.

don't encourage him!

Delta offered a specific compromise. It has nothing to do with building a wall, or for that matter securing the Southern border in any capacity. What you think should happen doesn't change what Delta said. I get it that this would not be an acceptable compromise for many. But you can't change the meaning of what he said. Your statements show a complete lack of comprehension of what Delta said. It is idiotic to post the definition of compromise. It doesn't change what the compromise Delta offered is. You should have learned comprehension of the English language at this level in grade school.

It all comes down to votes.. buying votes really..

Actually you could. The fire fighter would probably be angry because it would be a worthless compromise that would not work. But now I understand your point. Deltas compromise is to fix infrastructure instead of border security. You don't see this as a compromise. I see it as an unacceptable compromise. So we are disagreeing over semantics.

Why not take a hard look at what Israel's fencing and walls look like before comitting to any sum?

Around 30 unaccompanied minors were smuggled into the U.S. after tunneling beneath the border wall near San Luis, Arizona on Monday together with a group of over 300 Central American migrants who then surrendered themselves to the Border Patrol.


The tunnels – a few feet long – were reportedly dug by smugglers under the steel border fence, letting hundreds of supposed asylum seekers enter the U.S, according to the Customs and Border Protection.

The migrants shortly surrendered to the authorities and requested asylum. The agency said that 179 of the record 376 people who crossed the border illegally were children, with over 30 of them being unaccompanied minors.

This Monday, Jan. 14, 2019 photo released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection shows some of 376 Central Americans the Border Patrol says it arrested in southwest Arizona, the vast majority of them families, who used short holes dug under a barrier to cross the border in multiple spots about 10 miles east of San Luis, Ariz. The unusually large group was almost entirely from Guatemala.


The group is believed to be the largest one yet to cross the border in a bid to get asylum in the U.S. The agency noted that smugglers often try to transport large groups of people and instruct them to cross the border and voluntarily surrender.

“In my 30 years with the Border Patrol, I have not been part of arresting a group of 376 people,” CBP Yuma Border Sector Chief Anthony Porvaznik told ABC News. “That’s really unheard of.”

In the case of this particular group, since most of the migrants were with their parents, they are supposed to be released into the U.S. while they wait for the government to process their asylum applications – a law many say only encourages illegal immigration.

The Trump administration previously tried to implement a new rule that would ban migrants from requesting asylum if they illegally cross the border in a bid to encourage applying to asylum outside the U.S.

The policy was shot down by a federal judge in November following uproar from Democrats and civil rights organizations.

Film at 11...



Rocket dogs would have prevented this...

Yes! Just add a network of seismographs to detect tunneling, something the Israelis likely have, but do not discuss publicly. Concrete is maintenance free and not susceptible to a cutting torch as a steel barrier.

Robert, a sensible idea as usual.

That makes waaaaaaaay to much sense.

Guys, this guy is going to ruin the internet with this level-headed, sensible discourse crap. We gotta build a wall to keep him off the internet! He's a threat to our way of life!!!

yah...but it's not cons in general...it's the extreme far right cons, whose numbers have grown since Trump's erection...

why not compromise with intrastructure projects at places where existing barriers have been penetrated, buttressing identified high risk areas?