<Comment deleted by user>
@Waiting4BirnamWood said in #11:
> This is also true for many European governments, especially Germany. It's crazy to think that borders don't matter and that you can offer everyone an excellent life, even though the lives of your own citizens are getting worse and worse.
worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country
> This is also true for many European governments, especially Germany. It's crazy to think that borders don't matter and that you can offer everyone an excellent life, even though the lives of your own citizens are getting worse and worse.
worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country
<Comment deleted by user>
@Waiting4BirnamWood said in #13:
>
> So? Poverty is relative. Someone who has little money and cannot afford a good apartment will not benefit from poverty migration. And in Germany, for example, the influx of Ukrainian refugees is exacerbating the existing housing shortage. Add to that the cost of social welfare while the economy is in recession. And not to be forgotten are questions of cultural identity.
Don't you see some kind of pattern?
Is the proportion under poverty higher or lower in northern countries?
Maybe it explains why so many are moving North?
Is going to political right improving things in Europe?
And of course there are questions of cultural identity. The same right leaners who were bashing me for voting Yes at independence referendum - and saying that was racism when we were telling them that we wanted the survival of our culture and language - are now suddenly all in for protecting cultural identity?! Really funny.
P.S. This trend of cherry picking what is convenient and the tendency to vote for a charismatic clown rather than someone smart with relevant professional experience stopped me being actively involved in Politics.
>
> So? Poverty is relative. Someone who has little money and cannot afford a good apartment will not benefit from poverty migration. And in Germany, for example, the influx of Ukrainian refugees is exacerbating the existing housing shortage. Add to that the cost of social welfare while the economy is in recession. And not to be forgotten are questions of cultural identity.
Don't you see some kind of pattern?
Is the proportion under poverty higher or lower in northern countries?
Maybe it explains why so many are moving North?
Is going to political right improving things in Europe?
And of course there are questions of cultural identity. The same right leaners who were bashing me for voting Yes at independence referendum - and saying that was racism when we were telling them that we wanted the survival of our culture and language - are now suddenly all in for protecting cultural identity?! Really funny.
P.S. This trend of cherry picking what is convenient and the tendency to vote for a charismatic clown rather than someone smart with relevant professional experience stopped me being actively involved in Politics.
The environmental impact of such wall, if ever implemented, regardless if it would include, the Rio Grande river or not, would be a huge environmental disaster, not to mention a economic disaster for the border cities/towns.
The idea of an USA/Mexican wall, was and is not a serious idea.
It is a political gimmick, meant to arouse people's emotions.
Both the nationalist, and to create fear in the various blue colour workers unions.
It's kind of ironic, that American movies always shows how their movie criminals, all try to escape the law enforcement, by fleeing south to Mexico.
Some countries built walls to their neighbours, others built bridges.
Pray tell me, which is the road to peaceful coexistence?
And which is a hindrance?
The idea of an USA/Mexican wall, was and is not a serious idea.
It is a political gimmick, meant to arouse people's emotions.
Both the nationalist, and to create fear in the various blue colour workers unions.
It's kind of ironic, that American movies always shows how their movie criminals, all try to escape the law enforcement, by fleeing south to Mexico.
Some countries built walls to their neighbours, others built bridges.
Pray tell me, which is the road to peaceful coexistence?
And which is a hindrance?
Its just a river shared between countries. The wall is NOT to physically mark the border between the countries, it is to prevent illegal immigration.
Nothing happens if Immigrants touch "US Soil". What Trumps is trying to prevent is immigrants to actually reach populated areas. or whatever is inside the barrier.
The wall can be 1 km inside and still fulfill its purpose. As far as Im concerned, the river is just another obstacle, there is no difference if its right at the actual border or a bit more inside US territory, so long what they want to protect is in the proper side of the wall.
Any immigrant touching US soil on the wrong side of the wall, makes absolutely ZERO impact, there is no difference. The points where the US gather water from the river are protected. Nothing will happen to the river and nobody is gonna do anything on a mostly dry river anyways.
Have some common sense.
Nothing happens if Immigrants touch "US Soil". What Trumps is trying to prevent is immigrants to actually reach populated areas. or whatever is inside the barrier.
The wall can be 1 km inside and still fulfill its purpose. As far as Im concerned, the river is just another obstacle, there is no difference if its right at the actual border or a bit more inside US territory, so long what they want to protect is in the proper side of the wall.
Any immigrant touching US soil on the wrong side of the wall, makes absolutely ZERO impact, there is no difference. The points where the US gather water from the river are protected. Nothing will happen to the river and nobody is gonna do anything on a mostly dry river anyways.
Have some common sense.
@Alientcp said in #16:
> The wall can be 1 km inside and still fulfill its purpose.
It does make life impossible for those who live by the river. Because you'd be cut from the rest of the US off by a wall.
It's obvously expensive to have manned crossovers everywhere, so you'd have lage stretches of the river cut off witha long way to he nearest exit.
So that's what I meant by giving the area to Mexico. The 1 km would empty of US people because life is impossible there. It would become a sort of no man's land.
> The wall can be 1 km inside and still fulfill its purpose.
It does make life impossible for those who live by the river. Because you'd be cut from the rest of the US off by a wall.
It's obvously expensive to have manned crossovers everywhere, so you'd have lage stretches of the river cut off witha long way to he nearest exit.
So that's what I meant by giving the area to Mexico. The 1 km would empty of US people because life is impossible there. It would become a sort of no man's land.
I live like 20 miles from the border, and it is not in the river. It's in Texas
@KDMFan said in #18:
> I live like 20 miles from the border, and it is not in the river. It's in Texas
The entire border is 3,145 km, out of that Rio Grande is 2000 kilometres of the border.
> I live like 20 miles from the border, and it is not in the river. It's in Texas
The entire border is 3,145 km, out of that Rio Grande is 2000 kilometres of the border.
@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #17:
> It does make life impossible for those who live by the river. Because you'd be cut from the rest of the US off by a wall.
>
Most people that actually live near the river they are pro Trump. The ones living near the river are the first one affected by the immigration, they are the ones supporting Trump for that specific reason, they are willing to make a sacrifice.
> It's obvously expensive to have manned crossovers everywhere, so you'd have lage stretches of the river cut off witha long way to he nearest exit.
>
The US receives lie 2 million legal immigrants a year. It is more costly to have illegals on the long run.And no, you dont need to man the entirety of the border, there are a lot of technologies that help with the surveillance. You can only man specific post that are near to hot spots.
> So that's what I meant by giving the area to Mexico. The 1 km would empty of US people because life is impossible there. It would become a sort of no man's land.
The US giving land? lol.
> It does make life impossible for those who live by the river. Because you'd be cut from the rest of the US off by a wall.
>
Most people that actually live near the river they are pro Trump. The ones living near the river are the first one affected by the immigration, they are the ones supporting Trump for that specific reason, they are willing to make a sacrifice.
> It's obvously expensive to have manned crossovers everywhere, so you'd have lage stretches of the river cut off witha long way to he nearest exit.
>
The US receives lie 2 million legal immigrants a year. It is more costly to have illegals on the long run.And no, you dont need to man the entirety of the border, there are a lot of technologies that help with the surveillance. You can only man specific post that are near to hot spots.
> So that's what I meant by giving the area to Mexico. The 1 km would empty of US people because life is impossible there. It would become a sort of no man's land.
The US giving land? lol.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.