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?

delta1 wrote:

I agree.
But I feel that way about most of the budget.

Fire half the federal employees.
Abolish public unions.
Eliminate long term social services for all able bodied Americans.
Eliminate all social programs for anyone here illegal. All. Every last scrap.

Put the wall money towards our veterans.

Reduce. Cut. Eliminate. Rinse and repeat.

The last 3 weeks should prove that we can cut our federal workforce in half and not even notice.

tailgater wrote:

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.

Speyside wrote:

BTW, I think that we need a comprehensive securing of the border. A wall where a wall is needed, electronic measures where they are needed, more manpower where that is needed, more planes and helicopters if they are needed. I want to see the best solution implemented. Most of all we have to take away the monetary incentive for them to come here. Perhaps the compromise would be a modern immigration policy with appropriate funding so as potential immigrants don't have to wait years for a decision.

Speyside wrote:

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.

Speyside wrote:

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

rfenst wrote:

I enjoy our none agreement as well. Though I suspect my viewpoint on border security is not a liberal one.

Speyside wrote: