McCain: A Literal Wall Isn't Going To Protect The Border

By Katherine Fritcke
Published: Friday, April 7, 2017 - 10:37am
Updated: Friday, April 7, 2017 - 10:45am

The debate over building the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border has been a constant topic of conversation for Arizona lawmakers.

It was a topic that Sen. John McCain touched on when he held a Facebook Live Townhall, Friday.

McCain said just building a wall in its most literal sense isn’t going to protect the border.

“But, a combination of personnel, technology, equipment, and in my view rapid deportation of people who come into the country illegally, and perhaps some incarceration for repeat offenders, is a formula for having a wall,” McCain said.

McCain said that problems with security at the border are ongoing and the increases in trafficking, especially of heroin, into Arizona will only get worse if we don’t do something soon.

He said we can’t wait for Mexico to pay for the wall because that’s never going to happen.

http://kjzz.org/content/457573/mccai...protect-border

Gee, I agree with John McCain - hard to believe.

Now, I think Mexico could be made to pay for the wall.

You know we need to stop the drugs and illegals coming in - but we have to get tougher on the ones here. We have to induce them or force them to begin leaving. They are digging themselves in ever deeper -

As for drugs, probably a lot are coming in in ways we don't even want to consider.

You get the illegals here out now, as fast as possible, build the 1,000 miles of wall as fast as possible, guard the wall, ban remittances by illegal aliens of any kind, and our illegal immigration problem is solved.

McCain's position of the fence depends on the election cycle! When he's up for reelection he'll support the fence as an inclusive part of securing the border. When he's not up for reelection, not so much or not at all.


John McCain Border Shift: 'Complete Danged Fence'

• By RUSSELL GOLDMAN

May 11, 2010

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_m...0511_wmain.jpg

ABC News

Sen. John McCain released a new tough-talking television ad that blames illegal immigrants for ?home invasions [and] murders? and calls for the completion of a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, reversing years of on-the-record comments the Republican has made opposing such a barrier.more +

Facing the most difficult primary challenge he has seen in years, the ad is the most recent in a series of measures McCain, R-Ariz., has taken which play to the far right of his party, including endorsing acontroversial new law that allows police to stop people they suspect are illegal immigrants and demand identification.

The senator's office said the campaign ad did not indicate a change in his position on border security.Walking along the incomplete fence with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, McCain says: "drug and human smuggling, home invasions, murder." To, which Babeu responds, "We're outmanned. Of all the illegals in America, more than half come through Arizona."
Babeu tells McCain that his proposal for curbing illegal immigration is a perfect plan: "You bring troops, state, county and local law enforcement together."

"And," adds McCain, "complete the danged fence."

"It'll work this time. Senator, You're one of us," Babeu replies.

Since 2008, more than 500 miles of patchy fence have been built along the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico, mostly in Texas and Arizona, but its efficacy is debatable.

McCain's call to complete the "danged fence" is similar in tone to a comment he made in 2007, but rather different in substance.

In a 2007 Vanity Fair interview, McCain said, "I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the g..damned fence if they want it."

A year later in September 2008, on the eve of the presidential election, McCain told the Spanish-language station Univision that his plan did not include "walls and fences."

Sen. John McCain Once Teamed With Sen. Ted Kennedy on Immigration

"What my plan was, and what our proposal was, that we secure our borders, and we can secure it, not necessarily with walls and fences. Although that is important in populated areas, in the deserts of Arizona vehicle barriers, cameras, and sensors, all of those things, can be used," he said.

In 2005, McCain and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass, proposed a bipartisan plan that would increase border security, but also grant amnesty to illegal workers already in the country. The bill ultimately failed in the Senate.

The near 180 degree flip in his position led conservative columnist Kathleen Parker to deadpan to ABC News.com: "Let's just say that my cringe reflex is exhausted."

McCain's spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan denied that the ad was a change in his position.
"Sen. McCain has consistently called for and introduced legislation mandating fencing, both physical and virtual, as key elements in the comprehensive approach to secure our southern border as far back as 2007 and as recently in the 10-point border security plan Senators McCain and Kyl introduced last month.

"I'm appalled by the blatant disregard for Sen. McCain's longstanding record on this important issue. Next time, perhaps ABC News can do their journalistic due diligence before reporting such obvious falsehoods," Buchanan said.

In March, just after the Arizona state legislature passed its controversial immigration bill, a spokesperson for McCain said the senator would not take a position on it because "It's a state issue."

McCain's primary contender, former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, has drawn support from Tea Party activists, backed the bill and chided McCain for not supporting it. Soon after, McCain came out in support of the recently enacted Arizona immigration legislation.

McCain always said border security was a precondition to any plan that would give citizenship to illegal immigrants and he has not changed his position on naturalization, said Dan Schnur, a former advisor to McCain in his 2000 presidential campaign and now a professor at UC Berkeley.
Schnur said McCain's change in policy had to do with political pressure he was receiving from conservative elements in his party, but also had a lot to do with the reality of the situation in Arizona, where illegal immigration has spiked in recent years.

"Some of it has to do with type of primary that he's facing. But there is also been a fairly substantial change in the real world situation in Arizona," said Scnur. "There is no question that political pressures have had some impact, but just as great an impact has been a result of the on-the-ground situation."

Some conservative analysts do not see McCain's change in policy as a reversal, or a kowtow to the Tea Party but in keeping with his long-standing strategy to be a maverick.

Sen. John McCain and the Tea Party

"It ain't front page news that Sen. McCain shoots from the hip and is impulsive. Remember he picked Sarah Palin for his running mate," said former George W. Bush advisor and Republican strategist Matthew Dowd.

"Also, keep in mind this doesn't represent the influence of the Tea Party since every poll in Arizona and nationally shows Americans are longing for secure borders and support what Arizona did because they don't trust the federal government," Dowd said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-...ry?id=10616090

McCain and Graham are a couple of crazy drunks, if you ask me, and I think a good deal of that unaccounted for $500 million cash found their way into their brief cases during all their sneaky trips to the Middle East.

Truly what McCain and Graham are is paid stooges for someone/something, and certainly not interested in the betterment of this country and it's people.

Still think he is right - a wall alone will not do the job.

Stop them at the border - we simply must.

Equally, and maybe more important is to get them all out of the US. Every year/month/day they are allowed to stay allows them to get involved in more and more of the power positions in this country. Right now, I'm sure those who are helping these people are working at a feverish pace to get them installed in jobs such as teaching - from elementary school to universities. They are putting them in governments - from city halls to the halls of Washington. They are helping them into positions as bureaucrats - think what they can do in the welfare department. Think healthcare field - The lists goes on and on.

Every day they are allowed to stay they are going to be able to make more and more decisions about our lives and that of our children.

With the 'school choice' or 'school voucher' program, they can now open and operate schools that teach anything but respect for this country and it's people. Vouchers and 'school choice' was not designed to benefit the everyday, taxpayer, American children - far from it.

The best solution is full and complete deportation. No base, no new ones coming. No base, no one to sell the drugs. No base, no illegal voting. No base, no paid protection. No base, no sanctuary cities. No base, no political power. No base, no one here. Problem solved.

GET THEM ALL OUT including their minor children regardless of where they were born. GET THEM OUT, without exception or mercy. No sob stories, no whining, no nothing. Two simple questions:

1. are you a citizen of the US, yes or no
2. if no, do you have documents to be here, yes or no
3. if no and and no, then out you go.

Ann 8th grader can handle these deportations. You hire hundreds and hundreds of immigration/deportation judges and roll 'em out on 2 simple questions. You don't need a law degree. You don't even need a college degree. You need to be able to ask 2 questions and verify the answer, which ICE provide. It's that simple.

nntrixie wrote (excerpt):

Quote:

---

Truly what McCain and Graham are is paid stooges for someone/something, and certainly not interested in the betterment of this country and it's people.

Still think he is right - a wall alone will not do the job.

---

I don't think I've ever heard a single person say it would. Most folks fully understand that it will take a combination of things to secure our border, however, there are a lot of folks like myself that feel a good border fencing system is a substantial part of the puzzle.

For anyone that says a quality fencing system (or wall) is not an integral part of securing our border, I say they aren't paying attention or are part of the open border crowd.

Without policing of the interior against illegal immigrants, better border walls are completely useless. There are other ways to sneak into this country besides climbing over a fence.

In fact, I'd like to see statistics as to what percentage of illegal immigrants have physically violated a border, by which I mean climbed a fence or were smuggled through a legal border crossing. Let me guess that it is something like 30%.

We have the example of the Philippine illegals who fly in and come in through airport terminals. I'll guess that another 30% cross in through airport terminals.

I'll guess that a good part of the rest come in across water through our ports, or are on overstayed visas of some kind.

They come in on tourist visas and from Mexico, they don't even need a visa, they get a day pass to shop.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

nntrixie wrote (excerpt):



I don't think I've ever heard a single person say it would. Most folks fully understand that it will take a combination of things to secure our border, however, there are a lot of folks like myself that feel a good border fencing system is a substantial part of the puzzle.

For anyone that says a quality fencing system (or wall) is not an integral part of securing our border, I say they aren't paying attention or are part of the open border crowd.

---

No, I don't think I have actually heard anyone say 'the wall will stop illegals'.

But you will have to admit the rhetoric is 'build the wall'. I haven't heard many say, 'we are going to have to put a lot of personnel and weapons on the border - let's get that started now.'

Outside of people like me, I haven't heard anyone saying, ' we already have troops, let's use them. We already have laws, let's use them.'

They are planting/selling the idea that we must build the wall - first - and until we do, we can't do anything. Now we know there is going to be opposition to the wall - how much we don't know. We don't know how effective it will be. Will it take 2 years to build it. If so, can we wait that long?

Certainly, those who don't really want it stopped know the wall is not going to do much without personnel. They just hope they can flim-flam the people for a while longer while we debate, fund/defund this all important wall and give the illegals more anchor babies, more power.


I don't know how integral a part it is. I do know we have been pretty successful in Texas for many, many years without a wall. There was always the threat that we would actually enforce our laws, or people trespassing on other people's property might be in danger.

Thanks to several of our Presidents, most of our politicians, and law enforcement officials, actually encouraging this and protecting them, there is no fear of the law.

I think the law is/could be/ should be - much more effective than a fence.

Why not use what we already have and continue to discuss the wall and build one if it can be done - politically, I mean.

You don't have to be open border advocate to recognize when you are being lied to, or misdirected.

For most Trump Supporters, the "Build the Wall", was a simple 3 word message to stop illegal immigration and make Mexico accountable for illegal immigration over our Southern Border. Most won't care if the wall is never built if illegal immigration is stopped and those here illegally deported. They want the result, they really don't care how it's done. They would support mass deportations, troops on the borders, a Wall of Americans, we will support whatever we know to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

For most Trump Supporters, the "Build the Wall", was a simple 3 word message to stop illegal immigration and make Mexico accountable for illegal immigration over our Southern Border. Most won't care if the wall is never built if illegal immigration is stopped and those here illegally deported. They want the result, they really don't care how it's done. They would support mass deportations, troops on the borders, a Wall of Americans, we will support whatever we know to work.

---

Your wrong and don't speak for "most" Trump supporters. Many of his supporters, me included, do support the wall he promised to build during his campaign. Furthermore, most of us believe he meant exactly what he said. You can't simply word away what he promised with obfuscation. I find it more than a little surprising that you're calling Trump a liar, or worse yet, implying that he set out to deceive us by saying something he really didn't mean. When he said he was going to build a wall, that is exactly what he meant. "I'm going to build a wall" has nothing to do with a "wall" of Americans.

Whatever ....