Immigrants overstaying their visas creates a class of second-rate citizens, not privy to the freedoms, social programs, and protections America stands for.

how does a wall combat people who overstay their legally acquired visas?

a moronic door analogy doesn't answer that question

On a large scale, it's a group that can be easily manipulated, exploited, and extorted. It mutually harms the immigrants and Americans alike.

It doesn't address THAT PARTICULAR problem, but it does address a problem that actually does exist

After all, you do also invite certain people into your home

because the one I cited doesn't? okie dokie

well that's a relief

Different problems require different solutions

And people are treating the wall like its some amazing panacaea to the immigration issue.

You see, since your house DOES have a door and that door DOES have a lock, your number of problems is decreased

not either of you, but that's the impression I'm left with talking to others about it

America copes with 100,000 immigrants arriving at the southern border each *month* - the number of immigrants overstaying their visas is scarcely comparable.

100,000 legal or illegal?

100,000 immigrants. Not legal, as they're not citizens - not illegal, as they haven't crossed the border

that's still a legal entry, fucks sake, don't play games

I'm not. Without a physical wall, or consequences for crossing the border, the immigration system would be overwhelmed - and you end up with an underclass of immigrants.

Which already exists

I'll agree - a magnanimous wall doesn't fix the issue of illegal immigration.

I don't recall arguing against consequences for illegal entry

Ultimately the wall is just a deterrent. The real problem is allowing state's to deny federal agents (ICE) from deporting illegal immigrants.

@Jokerfaic but you have to admit that reducing the breadth of possible entry points would help increase the efficiency of enforcement

I just don't think its the most efficient use of resources for the issue

financial, manpower, or in regards to time

Fair point. I believe you could have drones for detection and subsequent border stations to deploy agents.

All more effective and cost-effective than a physical barrier alone.

reducing entry points, fine, can't argue that

We don't have - and never will have - a great wall of China on the southern border. It's partially to deter blatant immigration and more importantly to deter immigrants from storming our borders.

still, as soon as this fucking wall's done, effective or not, we can maybe flush out the CIA niggers still stirring up shit down there and incentivizing immigration in the first place

Bolton said it himself, the Monroe Doctrine is still alive

Well - you're not going to stop the CIA from shady practices. Iran-Contra is demonstrative of that.

Or the FBI, COINTELPRO

Or the NSA

On incentivizing - Democratic candidates promoting de-criminalizing border crossing AND federal benefits for non-citizens is a dangerous promise.

yeah, moronic

It's par for the course for the Dems. Look at how they've systematically destroyed the black family

By incentives

This is why I don't care for the debates. Candidates constantly flip back and forth with bombastic promises. We have no idea what they stand for until they win the primary.

If any candidate runs Medicare-for-all, social programs for non-citizens, or no penalties for immigration - Trump will win in a historic landslide

Maybe not as big as Reagan's 525-13 win over Mondale, but yeah, probably pretty good

If Biden's the frontrunner, I'm going with Rasmussen, AXIOS, and Moody Analytics prediction