Thread: Armed Mexican troops turned back illegal aliens at U.S. border Why can't we

The Wall of Americans consisting of 40,000 people, 20 per mile x 2000 miles paid $40,000 a year with 25% benefits for $50,000 a year total package is $2 billion a year. I've always added another $1 billion for supplies, supervision, equipment, camping gear, vehicles and so forth. So an annual cost of $3 billion a year.

The budget for Customs and Border Protection today with 45,600 agents is almost $14 billion a year. So my deal is a bargain by comparison. You would simply add the $3 billion to this budget for the Wall of Americans and it would be $17 billion instead of $14 billion. The benefit is better enforcement without interfering with the environment, dividing farms, impacting the Indian Reservations and ruining the views.

If it's ultimately decided there's 500 to 1,000 miles that doesn't need 24/7/365 coverage, then possibly that 40,000 can be reduced to 30,000 which would reduce the cost to $2.25 billion a year. Or if 20,000 would make a huge difference, then $1.5 Billion a Year. Either way, it's a huge bargain over the wall.

But like I said, for some strange reason people like you don't like it. It's plain befuddling if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Judy

The Wall of Americans consisting of 40,000 people, 20 per mile x 2000 miles paid $40,000 a year with 25% benefits for $50,000 a year total package is $2 billion a year. I've always added another $1 billion for supplies, supervision, equipment, camping gear, vehicles and so forth. So an annual cost of $3 billion a year.

The budget for Customs and Border Protection today with 45,600 agents is almost $14 billion a year. So my deal is a bargain by comparison. You would simply add the $3 billion to this budget for the Wall of Americans and it would be $17 billion instead of $14 billion. The benefit is better enforcement without interfering with the environment, dividing farms, impacting the Indian Reservations and ruining the views.

If it's ultimately decided there's 500 to 1,000 miles that doesn't need 24/7/365 coverage, then possibly that 40,000 can be reduced to 30,000 which would reduce the cost to $2.25 billion a year. Or if 20,000 would make a huge difference, then $1.5 Billion a Year. Either way, it's a huge bargain over the wall.

But like I said, for some strange reason people like you don't like it. It's plain befuddling if you ask me.

Either you and nntrixie didn't bother to read what I wrote or you've both decided to ignore most of it. If you guys are set in your mind and don't care to listen to reason, that's on you. Moreover, I can't figure out what you really want anyway. One minute your support Trump's wall and the next you don't.

Originally Posted by MW

Either you and nntrixie didn't bother to read what I wrote or you've both decided to ignore most of it. If you guys are set in your mind and don't care to listen to reason, that's on you. Moreover, I can't figure out what you really want anyway. One minute your support Trump's wall and the next you don't.

I don't support the wall. I've never supported the wall. I didn't support the fence. But unless you secure the border with manpower, we're left with no choice but a wall plus manpower.

I only support the wall BECAUSE you looney tunes won't support the MANPOWER.

Originally Posted by Judy

I don't support the wall. I've never supported the wall. I didn't support the fence. But unless you secure the border with manpower, we're left with no choice but a wall plus manpower.

I only support the wall BECAUSE you looney tunes won't support the MANPOWER.

That is a personal attack.

Sometimes we get passionate and frustrated but please avoid name calling. Perhaps at times we best just agree to disagree. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Jean

Sometimes we get passionate and frustrated but please avoid name calling. Perhaps at times we best just agree to disagree. Thank you.

The looney tunes comment was not directed at anyone in particular. It was directed at those enemies of our cause who refuse to fund and support funding of manpower needed to secure our border, any and all of whom that may include. Am I misunderstanding our objective here? I thought we supported manpower on the borders. I thought we supported troops on the borders. I thought we supported more border patrol on the borders. I thought we supported securing our borders with manpower. Perhaps I need an update on exactly what our policy is on securing the border.

Thank you.

Repelling invaders is not enforcing a domestic law. It is an international border, and if we can't use our military to enforce our own international border - then less disband it.

We don't need to fund an organization to guard borders in other countries. If that is the case, we must stop calling the US Military.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

That is a personal attack.

On whom?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_Tunes

Originally Posted by Judy

The Wall of Americans consisting of 40,000 people, 20 per mile x 2000 miles . . .

Trump's Plan To Hire 15,000 Border Patrol And ICE Agents Won't Be Easy