Polarization and the promise of a wall
In November of 1986 President Reagan signed the " The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986". The law would eventually grant citizenship to migrant workers who had been living in the country illegally, after certain conditions were met over a number of years. President Reagan wasn't afraid to call that amnesty. It did have certain conditions which the President, in good faith, depended on Congress to fulfill - "rigorous" border security and immigration law enforcement provisions.
The results were that millions of illegal immigrants eventually gained citizenship, congress never fulfilled their end of the bargain and today we now have about four times the number of illegal immigrants living within our borders.
Thirty years later Presidential candidate Donald Trump made the building of a border wall his key campaign promise during the 2016 election. After two years in office and many accomplishments the President has yet to get the money to build the wall. Congressional Republican leaders advised the President of priorities (Obamacare reform & the Tax Cut) which must come first. Then came the midterms with Conservative Republicans in the House promising to take up the matter after the midterm election. The sticky little matter of the need for 60 votes on legislation in the Senate seems to have eluded everyone. Now with a lame duck session before the democrats take over the House on January 3rd, Republicans passed a bill with 5 billion in wall funding in the House and sent it over to the US Senate. The question is why?
The border wall is now totally dead. It has nothing to do with securing the border or American sovereignty or how much it costs or how effective it would be. You see, "the wall" has become a symbol. It was Trump's biggest campaign promise and the left must deny him of keeping that promise. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer could get $30 Billion for "The Gateway Project" (a massive replacement rail tunnel system connecting connecting Manhattan with New Jersey.). As bad as Schumer might want that funding he cannot make the building of the wall a concession. How about "DACA"? Schumer and Pelosi might deal on certain border security concessions but not for a wall. Nope, the left, which will have control of the House for the remainder of Trump's term, is determined to deny the President his key promise.
The immigration problem continues
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
461 visitors
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."......George Santayana
The party of NO...
Who has controlled the entire government for the last 2 years, and still does until next month?
Party of NO is right, gop is incapable of governing even when they literally control it all, they really have NO rights to complain. And again, why are US taxpayers being asked by republicans to pay for something Trump PROMISED would be paid by Mexico? I don't believe we've seen or heard any explanations that make sense.
You still need 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. Republicans didn't have it then and dems don't have it now
If you know what a filibuster is then you know how disingenuous your comment appears.
N O......No Others?
"Promises made-- promises broken!" ..... Harry "Da Man" Krishna"
The Republicans have controlled not only the presidency bot but also both houses of Congress for same time now-- yet while they have succeeded in getting China to pay for the wall as Trump- has promised (on numerous occasions!), they still haven't managed to even start building it.
So, despite controlling not only the presidency but also both houses of Congress, once again this is yet another case of deju vu all over again-- one of so many of Trump's campaign promises continuously broken!!! <=|:-(
Lol, yup the world according to Chuck & Nancy
Because it is not needed. Also, I don't want to pay for it. If the right wants the wall, get a job and pay for it themselves. You know, like health care.
Border security is a legitimate Federal function. Health insurance is not.
Next?
So the wall is more important than a citizens health? That literally makes no sense at all.
This is not directed to MUVA, but a general statement.
Both border protection and health care are issues that benefit our populous, like many other issues. It is up to our government to listen to the people and what they want. That is why we vote not only for a president but also our congress.
We haven't had "open borders" for many decades, despite what the fake news right wing media is telling you.
Actually, this is what the Constitution says:
Clause 2: Protection from invasion and domestic violence [ edit ]
So while I am all for border security, the invasion they were talking about were from foreign countries. Now I don't want this to be interpreted that we can let illegals in without proper immigration, but I am trying to point out the intent of our founding fathers. Immigration is an issue much like healthcare and is not covered by the Constitution.
I am not advocating for open borders. But I am also not advocating for a wall. It is a waste of money. Gaza is a living testament to that, just ask the Israelis and the Egyptians. Also, many experts have said that there are better ways to give us border security. Finally, we were told we were not going to have to pay for this wall, and now our President wants billions of dollars that could be spent on domestic issues, for a wall we were never supposed to pay for.
OK . . .
Border fence in Israel cut illegal immigration by 99 percent, GOP senator says
No wall solves the problem 100%, but walls can be - and are - very effective.
Walls of Separation: An Analysis of Three 'Successful' Border Walls
I think that there are certainly other things we could do that would stem the tide. Those things might even be cheaper than a wall, but they probably wouldn't be as simple. And besides: no one is doing them . Congress has had 30 years to implement some other way of solving the problem and they haven't done it. Worse, they have promised multiple times to increase border security and haven't done it. Even when they did approve a physical barrier, they refused to fund much of it. Asking Americans to trust that Congress will do anything else to solve this problem is like calling us a country of suckers.
[deleted]
Tacos,
I said ask the Israelis or Egypt, not an American. Here:
Israel unveils plans for 40-mile underground wall around Gaza
A tunnel that Israel says was dug by the Islamic Jihad group leading from Gaza into Israel CREDIT: JACK GUEZ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Israel unveiled its plans for a vast underground wall around Gaza on Thursday, which military officials said would once and for all stop Hamas burrowing attack tunnels into Israeli territory .
The £500 million subterranean concrete barrier will run for 40 miles along the entire Israeli-Gaza border and is the first underground border wall of its kind in the world.
It is intended to prevent Hamas and other Islamist militant groups from using tunnels to launch surprise attacks into southern Israel.
The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have destroyed three tunnels which infiltrated into Israel from Gaza in the last three months. A senior IDF official said he was confident that once the barrier was complete, tunnels would no longer pose a threat. “That will be it,” he said.
The barrier is expected to be completed within two years, officials said, and less than three miles have been finished so far. Underground sensors will help to detect any future tunnels while a 9-meter tall fence will prevent crossings overground.
So no, the wall didn't do it. They now have to build a tunnel under the wall.
Egypt Demolishes Tunnel in Southern Gaza Strip, Reports Say
According to reports, Palestinian rescue forces are working to rescue the trapped people. It is not yet clear why the destroyed tunnel was used
The Egyptian army destroyed a tunnel dug in the Rafah area using heavy tools, Palestinian media reported on Tuesday. According to eyewitnesses in Rafah, eight Palestinian workers are trapped in the tunnel. According to reports, contact has been made with the people trapped in the tunnel and Palestinian rescue forces are working to free them. It was not published why the tunnel was destroyed.
Since Ramadan, Egypt has decided to open the Rafah crossing to the movement of people and goods. So far, more than 1,400 trucks from Egypt have passed through Rafah. Because the security control over the crossing is small, Israel is not sure whether the trucks were smuggling weapons as Hamas has done in the past.
In the past, Egypt flooded Hamas smuggling tunnels along the Gaza Strip border. In February 2016, Minister of National Infrastructures and Energy Yuval Steinitz claimed that Egypt did so at Israel's request. A few months earlier, in September 2015, the German news agency DPA reported that the Egyptian army had begun pumping water from the Mediterranean to flood the tunnels between Sinai and the Gaza Strip.
In 2009, Egypt began the construction of an underground barrier to block existing tunnels and make new ones harder to dig. In 2011, Egypt relaxed restrictions at its border with the Gaza Strip, allowing Palestinians to cross freely. [1]
In 2013–2014, Egypt's military has destroyed most of the 1,200 smuggling tunnels which were used to smuggle food, weapons and other goods into Gaza. [3]
Not let me point out two important things. First is that the Gaza Wall is only 40 miles and not hundreds of miles and in that short area, they have not been able to stop the tunnels, hence this new measure. Also, the main people who have broken through our barriers from Mexico are not people who are trying to immigrate here, but rather the drug cartels. Do you actually think a wall will stop them?
Of the 650 miles of existing border fencing, hundreds of miles are in need of repair because criminal organizations have cut through, dug under or plowed over it repeatedly. The drug cartels are using more modern technology than we are to breach our border, so why would we double down on an outdated tool?
And may I also point you to one of the most obvious flaws in this wall. That is the Gulf of Mexico. That will become the new route into the US. Do you know how many Haitians and Cubans are stopped each year by our Coast Guard? I can tell you, since my son in law to be, was a coastie, Here:
Coast Guard officials estimate that their crews have detained 132 undocumented Haitian migrants attempting to reach the United States since Oct. 1, the beginning of the federal fiscal year.
In Fiscal Year 2018, the Coast Guard interdicted 2,488 undocumented Haitians in the Straits of Florida, the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.
And he would be the first to tell you, that they don't catch them all. They just can't.
Wasting billions of dollars on a wall that may or may not stop the problem while there are better ways of handling it is insanity. Let President Trump listen to some experts on how to take care of this situation.
Like this:
We need a smart border wall, not a 3rd century solution
We have the technology to improve border security, and it would be much cheaper than a physical wall. Plus, it could be operational within a year.
We have driverless vehicles, we can use facial recognition software as payment for goods, and outer space is the next hot commercial travel destination. Yet we continue to debate the efficacy of a third century solution to secure our nation’s southern border.
The American people are frustrated and have every right to be. The federal government should have secured our borders by now. The tools to do so are available and have existed for some time in the private sector.
I used many of them when I worked for a private intelligence firm after nearly a decade of service in the CIA. I am continuously amazed by innovations in security and surveillance technology as a member of the House committees on both Homeland Security and Intelligence. We have access to existing sensor technology that can determine the difference between a jack rabbit and a human moving across the desert. We have drones that can track individuals anywhere on the planet. But when it comes to the border, we’ve allowed an outdated, physical barrier to dominate the national dialogue and stifle innovation.
The wall will be neither big nor beautiful: Ruben Navarrette
A one-size-fits-all approach will not solve our complex border problems. While a physical barrier can be effective in urban areas, each sector of the border faces unique geographical, cultural and technological challenges that would be best addressed with a flexible, sector-by-sector approach that empowers the Border Patrol agents on the ground with the resources they need.
Of the 650 miles of existing border fencing, hundreds of miles are in need of repair because criminal organizations have cut through, dug under or plowed over it repeatedly. The drug cartels are using more modern technology than we are to breach our border, so why would we double down on an outdated tool?
What we need is a "Smart Wall" to solve our 21st century border problems. A Smart Wall would use sensor, radar and surveillance technologies to detect and track incursions across our border so we can deploy efficiently our most important resource, the men and women of Border Patrol, to perform the most difficult task — interdiction. Most of this process can be done with computer vision, artificial intelligence and machine-learning, allowing our Border Patrol agents to focus exclusively on stopping individuals and contraband from crossing our border illegally.
The recent horrific human smuggling tragedy in my hometown of San Antonio is a stark reminder that there are nine major criminal organizations operating in Mexico that have zero regard for human life. A physical wall would not have prevented the Zeta cartel from smuggling some of those people across the river on rafts. On the other hand, a Smart Wall could have detected the crossing and followed the individuals until they were safely apprehended by agents.
For every move we make to defend ourselves, our adversaries will make a countermove. As the National Border Patrol Council agrees, true border security demands a flexible, defense-in-depth strategy that includes a mix of personnel, technology and changing tactics — all of which come at a lower price tag than a wall.
Based on this administration’s budget, each mile of physical border wall would cost $24.5 million . According to leading technology entrepreneurs, utilizing off-the-shelf technology to build a Smart Wall would bring the cost-per-mile down to less than $500,000 . With proven tracking technology and state-of-the-art drones, we could have a more secure border at a fraction of the cost — and it could be fully operational within a year.
Based on these figures, we'd save more than $32 billion that could be used to pay down our national debt, hire more Border Patrol agents, or increase CIA and NSA operations pursuing criminal organizations in Mexico and Central America.
I introduced the Secure Miles with All Resources and Technology (SMART) Act to ensure that we adopt the most effective and fiscally responsible strategy to achieve situational awareness and operational control of our southern border. Under my bill, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to deploy the most practical and effective border security technologies available. And before constructing expensive physical barriers, the DHS secretary would have to justify the expense to Congress.
In the past decade, there have been failed attempts at technological solutions along the border. One program in particular, called SBInet , was put in place along 53 miles of Arizona-Mexico border at a cost of $1 billion, then suspended shortly afterward due to poor management. This attempt failed because of a lack of input by the people that would ultimately use the system — the Border Patrol agents.
Additionally, in the short time since this last attempt, sensor technology has gotten so inexpensive that the types of sensors needed along the border are essentially disposable, and advances in data processing will allow for easier integration of disparate data feeds into a single picture that can be beamed to a Border Patrol agent wherever he or she may be.
We can spend tens of billions of dollars on an outdated solution and years fighting eminent domain lawsuits against our fellow citizens, or we can be SMART and deal with this most pressing national security challenge faster, more efficiently and cost-effectively.
Any sort of barrier has weaknesses, especially those using computer technology. You have a seed on here about baby monitors being hacked, guess what, any sort of drone, sensor, invisible fence, etc. can all be hacked. A physical barrier like a wall has to be either overcome or got around through physical means which can take more time and be detected easier than a hack. Do you remember all of the various breaches of Target and other retailers? Most of those breaches had occurred for MONTHS before there was a public notification and some states, like California, require IMMEDIATE notification of any such breaches.
Tom,
No wall will be any better than something high tech, and it won't cost us what the wall will cost us. What was outlined in that article was a multi dimensional way of dealing with the crossings.
And, a wall will allow some of that high tech to work better. Seismic sensors can detect when a person is drilling a hole or using explosives to dig a tunnel to get under the wall. It is what I keep telling people is called "Defense-in-depth", where you don't rely on just 1 technology or system but rely on layers. The wall would be the equivalent of the firewall on your network, various sensors would be the equivalent of a Network Intrusion Detection/Network Intrusion Prevention System, the Border Patrol and ICE are the anti-virus/anti-malware, and each citizen along the border would be the Host Intrusion Detection System. You ignore one of those, then the entire nation becomes vulnerable to attacks from people crossing illegally.
Wait, didn't Trump say Mexico was going to pay for it .
If you look at this chart you see that border crossings were highest during the W Bush years. But much of the right wing complaint about illegal immigration did not develop until Obama became president, when illegal immigration from Mexico was actually down. There is a good reason for this - when Obama became president the "Fear of a Black/Brown Planet" dawned on millions of American racists. The election of the first non-white president of the United States was a landmark event in the psyche of many many Americans. It suddenly dawned on them that America might not always be a "white" country unless something was done to preserve our "nationalism".
Is there an echo in here?
I copied the graph from your comment, lol.
Apprehensions tells us nothing about how many people actually cross into the country illegally. It only tells us how many were caught in the attempt. And we have an idea of how many have made it. The latest estimate is around 22 million. That should be a big enough number to bother anyone.
But...but... what about the YUGE "Caravan"? Remember, its consists entirely of murders, drug dealers, and rapists!
(Amongst them numerous Middle-Eastern Muslims who are members of ISIS!).
They will be arriving at our border in a few days-- just in time for Christmas! (Which is why we keep hearing about this threat in the news-- daily!)
And despite Trump's reinforcing our border patrol with the U.S. military (who are no match for the professional fighters of "The Caravan")-- both the U.S. military as well as the border patrol will soon be over-run-- hordes of ISIS terrorists will soon defeat our military and over-run our country!
Any day now...
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
What happened to the promise of Mexico paying for it?
WTF?
Trump never said Mexico will pay for it!
He has always said it will be paid for by people like you and I, the American taxpayer! (And well worth every penny!!!!)
Donald Trump isn't qualified to be president of the United States. Never has been never will be. He is more a crook who belongs in prison than he is qualified to be president.
Nothing that anyone can do or say will change that immutable fact. Either he leaves early through resignation or forced removal (impeachment) or he loses badly in 2020. The Republican Party has allowed Trump to destroy it.
Which president ended the illegal immigration? Which President took illegal border crossings down from a strong steady flow to nothing, in fact, a negative flow with more leaving than coming? This president also deported far more illegals than any other, he was basically the Deporter-in-Chief. Which president did this? Hint: It ain't Donald fucking Trump.
Illegal immigration was ended? Since when?
Which President took illegal border crossings down from a strong steady flow to nothing, in fact, a negative flow with more leaving than coming? This president also deported far more illegals than any other, he was basically the Deporter-in-Chief. Which president did this?
Are you talking about the leftist radical who attempted to get Americans to accept illegals - calling them "undocumented"? The same president who created DACA, tolerated sanctuary cities, opposed Arizona's program for reporting illegal immigrants, expanded the very asylum rules which are generating such havoc now, refused to deport illegals convicted of minor crimes and adopted the "catch & release policy? That president? Don't even go there.
Are you writing from the future? Because in our time, it hasn't ended.
Vic,
Trump's campaign promise was that Mexico was going to pay for the wall, not us. That is the promise he should keep if he can. Otherwise, there are cheaper methods to border control. I can find you articles if you are interested.
Is that piece of Trump hyperbole your objection?
That is the promise he should keep if he can.
Why? Because you know it can't be done that way?
Otherwise, there are cheaper methods to border control.
Cheaper than $5 Billion? When we spend much more than that each year because of all the illegal immigration. I think the $5 Billion is a bargain and a solid first step in the down payment of what the US Congress promised President Reagan in 1986. You see that is another important part of this discussion and the reason for Post # 1. It is also the title of a legendary article written in 2006 on this very subject:
First a Wall -- Then Amnesty
Friday, April 7, 2006
"Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.
Start with the second. No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer. But the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come.
We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty. The problem is that we say exactly the same thing with every new reform. And everyone knows it's phony.
What do you think was said in 1986 when we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform? It turned into the largest legalization program in American history -- nearly 3 million people got permanent residency. And we are now back at it again with 11 million more illegals in our midst.
How can it be otherwise? We already have a river of people coming every day knowing they're going to be illegal and perhaps even exploited. They come nonetheless. The newest amnesty -- the "earned legalization" being dangled in front of them by proposed Senate legislation -- can only increase the flow.
Those who think employer sanctions will control immigration are dreaming. Employer sanctions were the heart of Simpson-Mazzoli. They are not only useless; they are pernicious. They turn employers into enforcers of border control. That is the job of government, not landscapers.
The irony of this whole debate, which is bitterly splitting the country along partisan, geographic and ethnic lines, is that there is a silver bullet that would not just solve the problem but also create a national consensus behind it.
My proposition is this: A vast number of Americans who oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new -- i.e., future -- illegal immigration.
Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.
Can't be done? Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the past 50 years.
Of course it will be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keep truck bombs from driving into the White House. But sometimes necessity trumps aesthetics. And don't tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that's a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that's an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one.
Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn't have to be. It simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle. Once we can do that, everything becomes possible -- most especially, humanizing the situation of our 11 million illegals.
If the government can demonstrate that it can control future immigration, there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration. And, as Mickey Kaus and others have suggested, that may require that the two provisions be sequenced. First, radical border control by physical means. Then, shortly thereafter, radical legalization of those already here. To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last.
This is no time for mushy compromise. A solution requires two acts of national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely generous act of absorbing as ultimately full citizens those who broke our laws to come to America.
This is not a compromise meant to appease both sides without achieving anything. It is not some piece of hybrid legislation that arbitrarily divides illegals into those with five-year-old "roots" in America and those without, or some such mischief-making nonsense.
This is full amnesty (earned with back taxes and learning English and the like) with full border control. If we do it right, not only will we solve the problem, we will get it done as one nation.
That was also the argument of democrats at one time, before they watched Arizona & New Mexico turn purple. Then there is the matter of Trump whom the left hates and must defy on all occasions.
Stay focused on the truth of what Trump said. If you don't have a problem that he speaks before understanding government and the complexity of issues then just admit it but stop trying to twist out a reasonable justification as to why he mislead the American people.
[deleted] They just can't admit when they've been duped.
It is not about what Trump says. It is about the promise that congress made 30 years ago. Why not tell us how you feel about border security?
Funding is one of the elements people consider when the are deciding whether they do or do not support the wall. So, you can't separate it out of this discussion. Trump is a pathetic liar and his base have no moral principles to hold him accountable.
I believe in border security. But I think there are SMARTER ways to do it other than a 17th century wall.
Such as?
That was not hyperbole. He said it over and over and it became a mantra of his campaingn. He even said it again today:
The Trump administration said it still expects Mexico to pay for the border wall — but it's still demanding $5 billion from Congress
Please, when someone says over and over that they are going to do something on the campaign trail and after, they darn well should be as good as their word. Everyone has expected that from past Presidents and Trump is no different.
No. Because there are better ways of doing it than a dumb wall that will cost us billions and Mexico will never pay for it. And bottom line, we will still be patrolling since the catels will go under the wall. They have done so already. They will make a new business of taking people through their tunnels and across the Gulf of Mexico. Time to get real about what this is. A low tech non solution with mass appeal, that will cost us billions that I would like to see a high tech solution to that will not.
I'll accept all of that and all of it implemented before any consideration of the "DACA" problem. Just so I have it right, I'm putting you down for no border wall. Would you ever consider sending US troops to the border?
I don't know your position on DACA. And I never discussed here about immigration, since that is a whole different issue.
Yes and yes, but I still think that this can be done high tech.
The age of technology is here.
Perrie, I'm accepting that you believe the wall is ineffective and too expensive. The fact that you keep raising the issue of Trump saying that Mexico would pay for it tells me that you have a problem with Trump saying that. Correct? Let's just assume for a minute that Trump did what I would do - take the money we give to Mexico to fight drug smuggling (which the Mexican government has proven to be inept at) and apply it to the construction of a border wall. What would you say then?
I know what democrats would say. They would say he can't do that. We might even see some judge in the 9th Circuit try and prevent it. You see, Perrie, the other problem with the issue of the wall (The central problem) is that it is a symbol for those on the left who hate Trump. They must deny him this wall at all costs. Thus the nasty statements from Chuck Schumer, who says Trump will never have funding for a wall. Do you share those feelings?
If you are against a wall I want to hear how you intend to solve the problem on the southern border?
It has been mentioned how to do it. Read the comments.
And?
That was for PJ and there was a reason for that question
Great and who is pursuing those methods?
As I noted on my list, we need to hire more security agents. Don't worry, they have guns.
We need people on the border that know immigration laws and have been TRAINED to deal with immigrants.
So No to two of the things Trump wants. How about legislation so that refugee applications can only be accepted at a point of entry or that refugees must wait outside the US for their applications to be processed?
My position on DACA is simple. They should be given work permits and allowed to remain here, but based on how they arrived, they should NEVER be allowed citizenship.
Well, yeah. If you are going to make a campaign promise you should have at least explored the possibility of that actually happening.
I don't even understand your question to me. Why would we be giving billions of dollars to Mexico when we can do the job? And why do you keep going back to the wall when there are better ways. You asked me about sending troops and I said yes. Why are you moving goal posts?
There are plenty of independents who feel the same way. While we are all for border control, a wall is not a fix. Those who are experts have said so. And yes I am against spending billions of dollars on the wall, not because it is Trump, but because I feel that it is a waste of money. I don't do partisan politics but I am well aware that both sides of the political fence (no pun intended) have said no, just because, so Schumer is not so special in that respect.
I posted multiple alternatives. The national guard, high tech solutions found in this post here
on the bottom of that post.
I hope there is no objection to my closing this discussion. I find that 3 individuals were in favor of a wall and 3 were in favor of other means while others were simply against "a wall". I look forward to the incoming House democrats and I will be watching with great interest to see how they address the immigration problem.
Thank you all.