@Hum Yes

@21tagtmeiern The polls on support against the wall are misleading from their origin

21, just look at what researchers asked: “All in all, would you favor or oppose building a wall along the entire border with Mexico?” To me, it’s a confusing question. After all, there already is a wall or fencing along approximately 700 miles of the southern border. It might make more sense to ask, “Would you favor or oppose building a wall along the remaining, unwalled portion of the border with Mexico?”

Second, why ask about something that’s not under consideration?? A wall along the “entire” border? If you think Daddy Trump favors such a thing, that, too, might be blamed on confused reporting.
In July, Daddy Trump told news outlets, "It’s a 2k-mile border, but you don’t need 2,000 miles of wall because you have a lot of natural barriers.” News outlets reported that as if they were hearing it for the first time. “President Donald Trump doesn't see the need for a proposed border wall to stretch the length of the roughly 2,000-mile frontier with Mexico,” the Associated Press reported.

While we are on news being fake news and misleading the people, assuming there’s value to asking a poll question about something that nobody is proposing, there’s additional nuance to consider. The polls ended up with a Democrat-heavy sample: 38 percent Republican/Republican leaning and 52 percent Democrat/Democrat leaning. The 14 percentage point difference means Pew interviewed 38 percent more Democrat thinkers than Republican thinkers. I can’t find any estimate that says the actual U.S. population is politically lopsided along those lines.

They rely on samples that are scientifically sound but dont show the fill picture and are shockingly small... often 1,000 people or less. They apply a lot of magic weighting and adjustments that sometimes takes pages of disclosures to explain, in order to try to make sure those 1,000 people somehow reflect the beliefs of 323 million Americans. It’s the pollster’s clients, often news organizations, that may be responsible for one-sided or incomplete reporting of results.

@Deleted User

What do you think the wall would achieve? They can always be smuggled in or some shit

It's just a deterrent.

Like security guards.

It would be just as, if not more effective to post guards.

And probably be similar in costs.

@Hum A wall would stop around 70% of immigrants

for a specific amount of time

Since ~70% come by via mexican border

Until they get innovative.

^

@Deleted User Legalize killing of illegals @Hum

ok and?

Allow civilian militias to patrol the border

ummm

might cause a bit of drama but ok

Death will stop the vast majority of migrant motivation

Not many are going to volunteer their time to patrol a border that should already be patrolled.

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 Wrong, there are several civilian militias that already want to

The Feds should be taking actual care of it.

militias which will probably end up getting into skirmishes with the military if not controlled but yeah

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 The government would work alongside the militias

I'd gladly volunteer to patrol the border

what stops a militia from firing at the military

Putting an armed guard every so often would be a deterrent, the military is already paid regardless. Put the military to work.

@Deleted User a bigger military

we're talking groups?

You would Patrol the border for no compensation?

not the entire US National Guard

Hire a patrol that patrols the border patrol.

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 i guess so, the militia part would be to ease off tension and make it look like the people want it

@Summī Imperator, 呪い殿 I would on my off time, for free.

a lack of communications, or even sloppy mistakes could lead to skirmishes

Just use the military, they're there to protect the National interests

who would train these militias?