Trump's border wall prototypes virtually impassable, pass rigorous testing

Love how people take the wall thing so literally. It won't be like the one on Mexico's southern border with Guatemala. We have better technology. Either way I am an advocate for having a secure border so we can at least monitor who is coming into the country and why.

A secure border will allow for more people to take the proper path to citizenship where they contribute rather exhaust an already taxed welfare system.

Not sure why these anti-wall people don't see the empathetic choice is a secure border. An open border just creates chaos. Especially with such economic disparities from one side to the next. Either we secure the border ir become more like Mexico. Like my quality of life so no thanks leftists...

a reply to: JAY1980

There is no wall on mexico's southern border.

More than 200 years passed without a wall so why hadn't you become like mexico before?

originally posted by: JAY1980
Love how people take the wall thing so literally.

This is the only way they can attack it is by dishonestly addressing it like it's just gonna be a stone wall for 2000 miles. It will be a system of physical barriers, sensors, cameras and other technology, of course backed up with human assets. Some of the opponents of the wall even call for this in their rebuttals, saying we need to utilize modern technology like that hasn't been proposed. They're either woefully uninformed on the topic or they're deliberately misleading people.

a reply to: face23785

And some proponents of the wall have said, in this thread even, that it needs to be a solid wall. That a fence is unacceptable and that there cannot be gaps.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Cool story
I love tales of inter agency competitive banter like that. Trump should give a shout to the military to test his prototypes. I bet they'd love the challenge.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: face23785

And some proponents of the wall have said, in this thread even, that it needs to be a solid wall. That a fence is unacceptable and that there cannot be gaps.

They're not in charge of what's being built. It's not going to be a solid wall for 2000 miles. If opponents are explaining to people advocating for a 2000 mile solid wall why that's a bad idea, fine. Anyone attacking the actual proposal as if it's going to be that instead of what's actually going to be done is either misinformed or deliberately misleading people.

originally posted by: face23785
They're not in charge of what's being built.

Nobody said they are and nobody is arguing about what might and might not be built. Sometimes people reply to what people are saying they want.

Anyone attacking the actual proposal as if it's going to be that instead of what's actually going to be done is either misinformed or deliberately misleading people.

Nobody knows what it is actually going to be. Some say that it isn't even going to be finished, like the last 2 or 3 times it was proposed so, what is there to talk about?

By the way my reply was mostly to someone saying that just the wall would be a deterrent. That has nothing to do with what is proposed or what will actually be built.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JAY1980

There is no wall on mexico's southern border.

More than 200 years passed without a wall so why hadn't you become like mexico before?

I guess the answer to that is Texans had guns and sent them back across the border when they tried to enter Texas.

a reply to: dragonridr

Don't texans still have guns?

What about the other border states, why didn't they become like mexico during all that time?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: face23785
They're not in charge of what's being built.

Nobody said they are and nobody is arguing about what might and might not be built. Sometimes people reply to what people are saying they want.

Anyone attacking the actual proposal as if it's going to be that instead of what's actually going to be done is either misinformed or deliberately misleading people.

Nobody knows what it is actually going to be. Some say that it isn't even going to be finished, like the last 2 or 3 times it was proposed so, what is there to talk about?

By the way my reply was mostly to someone saying that just the wall would be a deterrent. That has nothing to do with what is proposed or what will actually be built.

Anyone who thinks it's just gonna be a wall is uninformed, no matter what side they're on. You can agree with that can't you?

a reply to: face23785

Who cares if I agree or don't agree. I was talking with someone who was saying it had to be a wall to be effective. Where else could the discussion go?

Maybe you need to step back and see what people are really discussing.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: face23785

Who cares if I agree or don't agree. I was talking with someone who was saying it had to be a wall to be effective. Where else could the discussion go?

Maybe you need to step back and see what people are really discussing.

Maybe you need to not reply to me when you're talking to someone else?

a reply to: face23785

Maybe you need to stop criticizing "anyone who..." in your posts without considering the context of what is being discussed.

I replied to you because you called people out for not reading the article when it clearly states that someone was able to climb it, without any tools, which puts in question the claim in the OP.

a reply to: daskakik


Nowhere does it "clearly state someone was able to climb it without tools"

Nowhere

a reply to: mikell

Sure it does. "Out of dozens and attempts, one guy made it to the top but he couldn’t get down. We had to bring him down with cherry picker."

If he had had a rope or ladder they wouldn't have needed a cherry picker.

a reply to: face23785

Trebuchet the drugs and ppl over.

a reply to: daskakik


Sure

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Maybe just build the wall from Hillary's emails as no-one seems to be able to get over them.

I'll get my coat.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: face23785

I still don't like the wall as a deterrent.
I would much rather see immigration reform to allow these people a better path to become Americans.
Just seems like a lot of money better used elsewhere.

Do you think we can take hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers who can't even speak english?

There are plenty of poor americans without the need to support such.

originally posted by: WarPig1939
the only way to truely end illegal immigration is to start chipping people like animals. You can track anybody and they cant take the chip out without triggering an alarm and notifying the authorities.

Use the chip. But if they have to be chipped. You know the American citizen is next.

Hear the chinese have AI cameras that can quickly scan a billion people think in like a second. AI cameras on each street, a database of driver and passport faces, and they'll be id'ed as outside the system instantly.

originally posted by: daskakik
I guess nobody noticed this in the article:

Out of dozens and attempts, one guy made it to the top but he couldn’t get down.

So a 31 foot ladder would have allowed him to pass the impassable?

There are sensors in the wall system, the few that manage to cross will be deported. Sure some may evade, but many will be caught.

As for tunnels, proper sensors and that's not going to be easy either.

a reply to: Xenogears

I think people are missing the point. If tech is going to do the heavy lifting then you don't even need a "wall", impassable or otherwise. It is just marketing.

Tunnels are not easy but they are used. Why have these sensors you speak of not been used before now? Is sensor tech just now becoming available?