This video features the current POTUS, and others, in a conversation in regards to the border wall, and border security.
The video is both educational and very telling.
The take away from the video is this, the current POTUS seems to be in favor of a border wall, and border security, while some of the other political representatives in the video seem to be in favor of border security only?
The video offers various talking points to have a conversation over.
So, what are some and their positions?
A) Border wall, and border security?
Or
Border security only?
Apparently, where there are sections of the border wall in place, the numbers of illegal immigrants have been greatly reduced?
Verses the other sections of the border, where there isn't a wall?
It would seem that where there is a section of the border wall in place, along with border security, a combined of the two works better, than just having border security by itself, without a border wall?
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
Care to comment?
Who do you agree with?
The POTUS?
Or with some of the liberals?
Or do you maybe view the border wall, and or border security altogether as irrelevant?
What might be your solution to the illegal immigrants coming into the United States illegally?
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
The "wall" should, at most, be the matter of the local (state or municipal) authorities. The Federal government should focus on more general and essential elements in policy-making. If Trump really wants to deal with the illegal immigration, then he must find more cost-effective solutions, leading to less intrusion into the individual state affairs.
When I pay my taxes, I do not expect a "wall" on the other end of the country in return: I expect something in return that will benefit me personally. I do not see how a wall benefits me in any way, and I do not remember when was the last time I saw a Spanish-speaking person in this area. I would prefer my money to be spent on something more immediate, such as infrastructure in my state, for example - not on something relevant only to people thousands miles away from my location.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just read this
http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/25016/#Comment_25016
Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news
Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.08  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 7%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Do you know what is missing from that debate?
The transparent conversation that took place in the Oval Office between the POTUS Donald Trump, The Minority Leader of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Minority Leader Incumbent Chuck Schumer, and Vice President Mike Pence.
That conversation showed the millions of the citizens in the country, via those separate perspectives how the border wall, and the border wall security is apparently viewed?
And many supporters, who are apparently in favor of the border wall, have expressed their support for the border wall, and liked what the President said in the Oval Office, via watching the news, and listening to the news on the radio.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
What you apparently view as irrelevant, apparently there are millions who view the border wall differently from your individual perspective?
A follow up question for you:
It would seem that you are apparently anti border wall?
Would you then maybe, view yourself as pro illegal immigrant?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Did you read the arguement that i linked?
No, I'm not pro illegal immigration.
It's just a wall WILL NOT WORK!
Immigrants will just go up, down, around, fly or swim past the wall. Meaning it would be the biggest waste of tax payer money in the history of the U.S
Also, most illegal immigrants overstay the visa they use to enter the U.S
How will a wall stop that?
Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news
Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
Show me what you view as a fallacy?
Wheres your evidence?
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
You assume, simply because i'm opposed to the idea of a wall, means i'm pro-illegal immigration
Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news
Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 71%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.82  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Walls certainly have their uses, but building a wall every time one wants to deter someone from coming in is not practical. A wall around my apartment guarantees my privacy and safety; a wall around a marketplace does not guarantee anything other than inconvenience for both the traders and the buyers.
A wall worked in Berlin, and it works in Pyongyang. In both cases, the amount of resources and personnel that had/has to maintain the wall has been/is astronomical - and those walls are tiny, compared to the wall aimed to deter Mexicans from coming in.
The wall is about the least cost-effective and practical solution possible in this situation. A minefield would make more sense than a wall. Now, a minefield would violate countless human rights conventions - but it would, at least, do its job. While the wall, as I have said many times on this website, can be easily passed with a $4 investment into a wooden ladder - unless the wall is properly manned, which would require such outrageous amount of resources, that Obamacare would look like a family picnic on Sunday in comparison.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Trump in the video made some statistical claims to the effectiveness of the walls that have been completed and neither Nutty Nancy or Cryin Chuck challenged those figures, or anytime after that I know of. I'm not sure the 4 dollar ladder would work given their design. But it can't go unmanned and I don't know if anyone is saying it can or should. The wall is only part of the solution and again i don't know if anyone is saying it's the only one needed.
The claim that many have turned back when they couldn't easily get in hasn't been challenged or disproved either.
IMO the best barrier would be the razor wire, high and deep with drones and patrols of course, would be so cheap and easy to maintain, but the bleeding hearts wouldn't go for that now would they, you see there's no other real choices. The fences they build in the past where inadequate and no virtually useless. Because there is no longer and meaningful compromise in government, here we are.
If it were up to me, I'd put military bases and training ground the whole length of the border, problem solved. lol
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Your assumptions...
You assume, simply because i'm opposed to the idea of a wall, means i'm pro-illegal immigration"
A hypothesis on the word assumption:
An immigrant coming to the United States illegally, maybe because of one of two factor's, based on "assumptions?"
If they can hypothetically speaking, get into the country illegally instead of utilizing the legal process, they can apparently get sanctuary in one of the 300 sanctuary cities in the United States?
(I wonder how some of the citizens in some of those sanctuary cities feel about the illegal immigrants getting sanctuary in those cities?
Doing interviews with some of the the citizens in those cities, and asking them how they feel about the illegal immigrants being given sanctuary in those cities, where those citizens live? And if they agree with the sanctuary status or not?)
And second, hypothetically speaking, if they can maybe get work with this or that business that is maybe/ allegedly utilizing illegal immigrants to do work, for their businesses?
Is it legal or illegal to utilize some of the illegal immigrants in that hypothetical situation?
(Because of the below law, is why I pose the question above.)
From Wikipedia:
"Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
The Immigration Reform and Control Act(IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty,[1] signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congresswhich reformed United States immigration law. The Act[2]
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.46  
  Sources: 9  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
No comment for the previous points of view?
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 43%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Blues and Raptors handed two very toxic teams embarrassing losses, 95% of the sports world is rejoicing in the news
Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 46%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.24  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 22%  
  Learn More About Debra