Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[hollodero]

(12-12-2018, 08:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/24/donald-trump-europe-border-walls-migrants/532572002/

I find it quite ironic that this is a distinct anti-wall article, stating things like 

Quote:"It serves no purpose other than political theater. It should come down. I would urge Americans to examine whether Trump’s wall will really make them safer or better off," Molnar said.

Quote:A recent visit by USA TODAY to Hungary and Slovenia — the two countries with the region's largest expanse of fences — revealed that those who live and work near these barriers often find they serve little purpose

...yeah that's what we usually find. I too wouldn't know of these European countries that have built an effective wall. Uneffective fences, we do have some of those.
What really helped reduce the immigration influx was Europe paying Turkey to keep the bulk of Syrian refugees in their country. That's what did the trick. Not a Hungarian fence.

(12-13-2018, 01:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If Mexico loses out on the deal then they've "paid for it". 

If they have to provide social services for those turned away from our borders the they've "paid for it"

I get it's a semantics argument; but one Trump can easily point to. 

But he pointed to remittance fees and the trade surplus, however that one can be tapped. But OK. I do think saying "hey we built a wall, hence Mexicans stay in Mexico on Mexico's expense, so Mexico paid for the wall" is lamer than what most supporters had in mind.

What I always wonder though, how helpful is it to further burden Mexico and hence make the country poorer. An increased immigration pressure seems like a logical consequence, cutting into the possible "positive" effects of a wall.