If you can define regressive/progressive, I may concede

Defend the borders, yes, kill people crossing the border, no.

One of these is no longer societially acceptable, where it may have been decades ago.

Which is regressive.

why not encourage them to stop coming?

So?

by shooting the fuckers who try to border hop

First before we start on the wall I want something done about the sanctuary cities and states

Because there are options to encourage them not to cross without 'we're going to murder you'.

It should be used as a last resort.

like what?

"Cross this line, or else I shoot."

Simple enough instructions.

they might piss on your words, but they know well enough not to fuck with guys with guns

Which is exactly why arresting and deporting is effective.

Because the border patrol is armed.

@OtaRev for cities, just cutoff their funding entirely
for states, threaten to revoke statehood

and if they still keep border hopping?

when then?

Make it difficult enough to not be worth the risk.

like armed guards, waiting to shoot border hoppers....

The risk is being shot

The reason they cross is because it's easy to cross right now.

There is little risk.

I don't think California would take revoking statehood as a threat.

Not much likelyhood to be caught.

have an actual minefield, and they'll stop dead in their tracks

Have a wall, and the same thing is proven to happen.

And the wall is less expensive.

And results in less death.

It's settled then: Build the wall!

`And the wall is less expensive.`
not in terms of time or volume
`And results in less death.`
and?

Explosives aren't cheap.

Concrete is pretty cheap.

it's not just concrete tho

It's primarily concrete.

Find heroin addicts who want a fresh start, and use them as cheap labor. Bed and food for building a wall

Explosive compounds are still very expensive.

That's what the NG was called in for, IIRC.

@Fitzydog give prisoners an incentive to work off their time

How expensive it is to build a moat?

So many work opportunities!