The Trump wall in Rio Grande

So one of Trumps promises was tui BUILD THE WALL and all that.

What I don't get about it is that USA's border to Mexico is the Rio Grande for a long way. And you can't build a wall in a river.

You COULD build a wall on the US side of the river, but then you'd have to build it some way up the bank, and then you'd basically gift both the river and your bank to Mexico.

Ayway it didn't seem to matter at all to his supporters that they were apparently asking for a wall in a river.

My impression was that they didn't know about Rio Grande. But I never understood it really.

Even us Europeans know about it, because in the western they always need to cross the Rio Grande to get into Mexico and escape the sheriff. So it's strange to me if Trump's voters don't know about it.

@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #1:
> So one of Trumps promises was tui BUILD THE WALL and all that.
>
> What I don't get about it is that USA's border to Mexico is the Rio Grande for a long way. And you can't build a wall in a river.
>
> You COULD build a wall on the US side of the river, but then you'd have to build it some way up the bank, and then you'd basically gift both the river and your bank to Mexico.
>
> Ayway it didn't seem to matter at all to his supporters that they were apparently asking for a wall in a river.
>
> My impression was that they didn't know about Rio Grande. But I never understood it really.
>
> Even us Europeans know about it, because in the western they always need to cross the Rio Grande to get into Mexico and escape the sheriff. So it's strange to me if Trump's voters don't know about it.

A very good question and definitely worth asking.

So in terms of the Rio Grande here is the thing.
Unlike a lot of rivers the river is at least partly dry for the majority of the year, so it would be possible to build a wall much closer to the bank. In addition as Texas has done, you can put floating barriers there.

Now I have seen some examples of fences and walls on river border crossings and they are quite standard. China for example has them with Russia, and North Korea. In the NK case, both sides have decent sized walls on either side.

Also Greece (where I happen to have been born) has been putting border walls between its water border with turkey and you can see quite a good example there

apnews.com/article/technology-business-greece-turkey-migration-9335b4619cef94f13b7831464d109741

Finally, the Biden admin does seem to believe in border walls on rivers : for example

www.hagerty.senate.gov/press-releases/2023/05/04/biden-nominee-tells-hagerty-she-supports-u-s-funded-border-wall-in-jordan/

This is from a GOP senator's website. I agree that the GOP are pro the wall, but it simply includes the transcript of the question where the Senator was pointing out the US omnibus bill includes 150 million for a wall in Israel to protect the country. His point being if this is good enough for Israel it should be good enough for the US.

Also, the wall, as with all walls, is not by itself a solution but it gives the defenders on the US side a chance to focus on certain areas.
There is no panacea but as can be seen with the change in influx of illegals in the two different regimes, sometimes just the approach is enough to deter even the majority of potential illegals from crossing.

Oh and one last thing, legally you don't technically gift your land to the other country if your wall happens to be inside your border. It is still your land but you just can't prevent people from being there per se. Given that there is basically no way to really live there, this isn't really an issue for the moment and anywhere that I know of. However, the situation could of course change. You can also put smaller barriers closer to the exact border point (e.g. the floating barriers) simply to mark the point and provide a warning.

You are expecting critical thinking skills from Trump supporters. These people thought a racist reality TV host should have the nuclear codes.

@spectrox75 said in #2:
> A very good question and definitely worth asking.
>
> So in terms of the Rio Grande here is the thing.
> Unlike a lot of rivers the river is at least partly dry for the majority of the year, so it would be possible to build a wall much closer to the bank. In addition as Texas has done, you can put floating barriers there.
>
> Now I have seen some examples of fences and walls on river border crossings and they are quite standard. China for example has them with Russia, and North Korea. In the NK case, both sides have decent sized walls on either side.
>
> Also Greece (where I happen to have been born) has been putting border walls between its water border with turkey and you can see quite a good example there
>
> apnews.com/article/technology-business-greece-turkey-migration-9335b4619cef94f13b7831464d109741
>
> Finally, the Biden admin does seem to believe in border walls on rivers : for example
>
> www.hagerty.senate.gov/press-releases/2023/05/04/biden-nominee-tells-hagerty-she-supports-u-s-funded-border-wall-in-jordan/
>
> This is from a GOP senator's website. I agree that the GOP are pro the wall, but it simply includes the transcript of the question where the Senator was pointing out the US omnibus bill includes 150 million for a wall in Israel to protect the country. His point being if this is good enough for Israel it should be good enough for the US.
>
> Also, the wall, as with all walls, is not by itself a solution but it gives the defenders on the US side a chance to focus on certain areas.
> There is no panacea but as can be seen with the change in influx of illegals in the two different regimes, sometimes just the approach is enough to deter even the majority of potential illegals from crossing.
>
> Oh and one last thing, legally you don't technically gift your land to the other country if your wall happens to be inside your border. It is still your land but you just can't prevent people from being there per se. Given that there is basically no way to really live there, this isn't really an issue for the moment and anywhere that I know of. However, the situation could of course change. You can also put smaller barriers closer to the exact border point (e.g. the floating barriers) simply to mark the point and provide a warning.

A floating barrier in the river makes sense, it just never seemed like during the "Bulld the wall"-thing that they were aware of that. The impression I got was that they wanted to build a wall like Great Wall of Chine-style all the way.

Maybe it was just implicitly that Rio Grande was a different matter, but all the stuff I saw was wall-oriented and Trump never mentioned his project for Rio Grande.

> Oh and one last thing, legally you don't technically gift your land to the other country if your wall happens to be inside your border.

No not legally but in practice. Like it's hard to fish in the river for instance if there's a wall infront of it. So I guss the Mexicans would get all the fish if you like cut people off from the river.

This off course does not matter if the river in question is like in a delolate place nobody cares about, but Rio Grande AFAIK isn't like that.

I think US also has cities ON the river, and then it becomes even weirder to cut a city off from it's waterfront by a wall.

I'm not against border control as such also in form as walls - Spain for instance had a wall in Ceuta for like 20ish years with nobody batting an eye and them being governed by Socialists for half the time I think.

It was more like wanting specifically a wall as the solution when your border is a huge river that puzzled me.

@spectrox75 said in #2:

> Also, the wall, as with all walls, is not by itself a solution but it gives the defenders on the US side a chance to focus on certain areas.

The question must be asked what are we "defending" ourselves from? I live in a community with a very high Latino migrant population. These people traveled here to work brutal jobs in agriculture, construction, hospitality, etc., to try and carve out a better life for their families. And we want to keep these people out??? The scary immigrant criminal is a right-wing boogey man. Immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native born Americans.

> There is no panacea but as can be seen with the change in influx of illegals in the two different regimes, sometimes just the approach is enough to deter even the majority of potential illegals from crossing.

There is a solution, although it's politically impossible because of the American right. Economic development in Mexico and Central America. Migrants come to the US because their are no economic opportunities and their countries are literally run by violent gangs. If we gave economic assistance to these countries then in time the reasons for coming to the US fade.

If you ask me, the right-wing's stance on the southern border is all smoke and mirrors. They use it to scare their voting base. They are more than aware that large swaths of our economy rely on migrant labor and they love that they come illegally because it means they work for nothing and have no rights as workers.

@mpedmondson said in #5:
> The question must be asked what are we "defending" ourselves from? I live in a community with a very high Latino migrant population. These people traveled here to work brutal jobs in agriculture, construction, hospitality, etc., to try and carve out a better life for their families. And we want to keep these people out??? The scary immigrant criminal is a right-wing boogey man. Immigrants commit crime at lower rates than native born Americans.

Well here is the first thing. If rule of law is to count for anything, illegal immigrants should immediately be deported. If you don't have that then why should anything follow the law? Also, by definition illegals commit crime at higher rates than native born Americans because coming in illegally IS a crime.
In addition, until the US homeless problem is solved, it is stealing from the poorest citizens of the country to accommodate illegals in any way. Also, it disproportionately hurts the border states that have the biggest burden. A burden so big that when NY or Chicago get even a very small proportion of it (far less than would be allocated if illegals were to be distributed evenly by population and even less than that if a more equitable distribution were to be done where "sanctuary cities" took more of the burden) they cry blue murder.

>
>
>
> There is a solution, although it's politically impossible because of the American right. Economic development in Mexico and Central America. Migrants come to the US because their are no economic opportunities and their countries are literally run by violent gangs. If we gave economic assistance to these countries then in time the reasons for coming to the US fade.
>
> If you ask me, the right-wing's stance on the southern border is all smoke and mirrors. They use it to scare their voting base. They are more than aware that large swaths of our economy rely on migrant labor and they love that they come illegally because it means they work for nothing and have no rights as workers.

If you actually want to end such high income inequality the absolute first thing you need to do is stop allowing illegals to come in and work. When you have such large numbers of low to zero skilled workers available, guess what? Everything that doesn't involve skill will pay next to nothing. If you want to end income inequality enforce extant border laws.
As you say , illegals are being exploited so it is not really good for them either.
As for economic assistance to these countries, the US has provided almost 4 TRILLION dollars in foreign aid since the end of the 2nd world war. That is reality.
The problem is not the aid, it is the fact that these countries have so much corruption that the aid doesn't go to anyone but the governments and their lackeys. Do I wish that foreign aid was more effective? Absolutely. But for the moment that is the truth. Not enforcing the border does nothing whatsoever to help this.
As an immigrant myself, I spent the best part of a decade apart from my wife and for at least 2 years could not work at all and had to live off savings. This is the consequence of wanting to immigrate. A huge number of good hard working people are sitting in third world countries doing it by the book and illegals are queue jumping ahead. It is neither kind nor reasonable to allow them to continue, and it is also tantamount to child abuse given that there is good evidence that 30% or more of the children that are taken across are not related to the "parents" that brought them in. Allowing child trafficking because of a weak border is evil.

@spectrox75 said in #6:
> Well here is the first thing. If rule of law is to count for anything, illegal immigrants should immediately be deported. If you don't have that then why should anything follow the law? Also, by definition illegals commit crime at higher rates than native born Americans because coming in illegally IS a crime.
> In addition, until the US homeless problem is solved, it is stealing from the poorest citizens of the country to accommodate illegals in any way. Also, it disproportionately hurts the border states that have the biggest burden. A burden so big that when NY or Chicago get even a very small proportion of it (far less than would be allocated if illegals were to be distributed evenly by population and even less than that if a more equitable distribution were to be done where "sanctuary cities" took more of the burden) they cry blue murder.

Coming illegally to work your ass off in a job that Americans refuse to do is only a crime because we have terrible immigration policy and a terrible minimum wage. It's a crime in the same way that smoking marijuana is a crime. It's only illegal because of stupid laws. And you can't cry about our homeless population because the right-wing refuses to do anything about that either. Do they want to fund mental health care? No. Do they want free drug treatment programs? No. Do they want affordable housing programs? No. They always just blame it on liberals being weak on crime which absolutely insane because we have the largest prison population in the world. If mass incarceration was the answer we wouldn't have a problem. And if you thought the social programs to help the homeless were too expensive wait until you see the price tag on putting them all in prison.
>
>
>
> If you actually want to end such high income inequality the absolute first thing you need to do is stop allowing illegals to come in and work. When you have such large numbers of low to zero skilled workers available, guess what? Everything that doesn't involve skill will pay next to nothing. If you want to end income inequality enforce extant border laws.
> As you say , illegals are being exploited so it is not really good for them either.
> As for economic assistance to these countries, the US has provided almost 4 TRILLION dollars in foreign aid since the end of the 2nd world war. That is reality.
> The problem is not the aid, it is the fact that these countries have so much corruption that the aid doesn't go to anyone but the governments and their lackeys. Do I wish that foreign aid was more effective? Absolutely. But for the moment that is the truth. Not enforcing the border does nothing whatsoever to help this.
> As an immigrant myself, I spent the best part of a decade apart from my wife and for at least 2 years could not work at all and had to live off savings. This is the consequence of wanting to immigrate. A huge number of good hard working people are sitting in third world countries doing it by the book and illegals are queue jumping ahead. It is neither kind nor reasonable to allow them to continue, and it is also tantamount to child abuse given that there is good evidence that 30% or more of the children that are taken across are not related to the "parents" that brought them in. Allowing child trafficking because of a weak border is evil.

By far the largest recipient of US foreign aid is Israel. 4 billion a year to be exact. Couldn't tell you what we spend in Central America but not even remotely close to that. Maybe these countries wouldn't have so much corruption if police officers and politicians made enough money from their jobs so that they weren't tempted to take bribes from drug cartels. Israel certainly put the money to good use. They have a ridiculously effective police and security force. If El Salvador had the same things would be a whole lot different there.

These countries are war zones. Massive border security is not going to deter someone who facing death or starvation in their home country. Build the biggest wall you want, put a million security agents on it. People will still come because the alternative is so unspeakably horrible.

I sympathize with your struggles as an immigrant but these are just realities. Children are being sent without their parents because the parents know there is a greater chance of them getting through if they are alone. Can you imagine sending your child on that journey alone? The desperation they must be feeling to do that. When you acknowledge that kind of desperation then you have to admit that no amount of border security is going to work.

But that's the thing. Only because of these illegals are the lowest wages so low. And GOP does want to fund mental health care as long as it is in institutions and not the enabling policies of the left.
And no those laws are NOT stupid. Every civilized country in the world has immigration laws. The US lets far more legal immigrants in than any other country, and it is not possible mathematically to accommodate illegals as well.

Now it's interesting that you should mention El Salvador because in the last 6 months ever since their zero tolerance crime incarceration in mega prisons started, crime has simply collapsed there. The US does give them aid around 130 million per year which is decent given that its entire population is 25% smaller than NYC.
The only thing different this time though was insisting that these gangs were incarcerated in such a way that they could not basically extend their influence to the outside world, nor could they know who the prison officers were (so that their families would not be at risk), and where such gangs were now treated exactly as they themselves behaved.

As for your view on immigration numbers, sorry but the stats don't agree. During the Trump years far fewer people crossed into the US. It was only Biden making it easy for them that suddenly exploded those numbers. Not economic hardship or other issues, just the plain fact that the Admin made it clear again and again that illegals would not be prevented from coming in. This logically not consistent with your assertion that children are being sent over due to desperation.

Also, and this is anecdotal of course but feelings are feelings. There is not one scenario where I would send my child across the US border by themselves without me. And my family is not from a rich country and we were broke at certain times and my parents just ate nothing and gave us what they could. They certainly didn't send us away and I would die before doing so for my kids.

And again, the US admin actually DOES believe in walls - they gave 150mm to Israel for that exact purpose.

The wall is all smoke and mirrors as stated above - it would largely do nothing, exists already in critical areas - and is easily bypassed via various methods by the most serious offenders... there are far deeper root issues to address than just a 'wall' - it's a stupid symbolic gesture to appease shallow thinkers.

Is there really anyone stupid enough to have believed President Pumpkinface that Mexico would pay for the wall? Let me tell you something: He who orders the music pays for it.