Thread: Rick Perry On Donald Trump’s Proposed Border Wall: ‘You Can’t Do That’

Rick Perry On Donald Trump’s Proposed Border Wall: ‘You Can’t Do That’

The former Texas governor says “a technological wall” is more likely.

07/11/2016 11:39 am ET

Elise Foley Immigration & Politics Reporter, The Huffington Post


Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised a physical wall, 35 to 40 feet tall, along the United States’ border with Mexico. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who has endorsed the candidate, shot down that idea in an exchange with Snapchat’s Peter Hamby that was posted Monday.

“I’m for Donald Trump, and he says I’m going to build a wall and the Mexicans are gonna pay for it,” Perry said.

“That’s not going to happen,” Hamby said.

“Well, it’s not,” Perry replied. “It’s a wall. But it’s a technological wall. It’s a digital wall. There are some that hear, ‘This is going to be 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Thirty feet high.’ And listen, I know you can’t do that.”

But Trump has promised a “real wall.”

“What we’re doing is we have 2,000 miles, right? Two thousand miles. It’s long but not 13,000 miles like they have in China,” Trump said on MSNBC in February. “Of the 2,000, we don’t need 2,000. We need 1,000 because we have natural barriers.”

Trump says Mexico will pay for the wall, an idea government figures in the country have flatly rejected ― including President Enrique Peña Nieto, who reiterated that position on Sunday.

What Perry discussed is more in line with what experts say is a better way to police the border, as well as with what Congress has proposed. A 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate, for example, would have mandated 700 miles of fencing. But it also would have ramped up other forms of security and surveillance, such as ground sensors and camera systems.

The government already built about 650 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, but has not finished the rest for a number of reasons, including the cost. Construction is also difficult because much of the border is in the middle of the Rio Grande river and some of it is on private land.

Perry mentioned some of those complications in an interview in January, referring to Trump’s border wall idea.

“Building a wall ... will take literally years,” he said.

“I don’t care how good of a builder you are. And plus the private property rights. This is an issue that really gets complex in a hurry. I know because I’ve had to deal with it.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b01edea78ea889

Obviously it is not necessary to build a forty foot wall continuously the entire length of the US/Mexican border, or the US/Canadian border. That's just silly.

But like all issues related to Trump's stand on illegal immigration, what he will do will clearly be so much more than what is being done now, walls included, that it is not necessary to fulfill the letter of some scheme he has in his head now.

All he needs to do is make a start and once we absorb the reaction and see the results, we will be able to better see how to attack the problem.

If forty foot walls are necessary to do the job, then we will build forty foot walls. The Rio Grande, for example is easy, we just build a wall on our side of the river. Does anyone really expect us to build a wall in the river itself? More silliness.

Building a wall exactly right on the border is a bad idea. Better to build the tallest walls a hundred feet or so within our side of the border so that our border patrol can patrol both sides of the wall. The actual border can be walled off with a smaller more superficial wall. A dual wall is better than a single forty foot wall. In some areas, the superficial wall could be nothing more than a vehicle barrier.

There is also the issue of private property, but seriously, the US border is not private property and land owners on the US border have some obligations to national security that supersede property rights.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

. . . There is also the issue of private property, but seriously, the US border is not private property and land owners on the US border have some obligations to national security that supersede property rights.

The border is in the middle of the river.
Private property runs right to the waters edge.
If you build a wall 100 feet inland you block the farmers and ranchers from their land and their water rights.
They can't access the water. Their animals can't access their water.
You have to use eminent domain to TAKE their land and pay them for it. Miles and miles of private property. And they will fight for their land and water in court for many years and the court will block construction until it is all settled by the courts.

Texas kept Bush from building a fence over these same rights.

In this geeky-tecky age, use technology more; get real. It is not used because they want drugs, illegals, streaming EVERYDAY - IT IS A SANCTIONED TAKEOVER!

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/10/09/...y-21st-century

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

The border is in the middle of the river.
Private property runs right to the waters edge.
If you build a wall 100 feet inland you block the farmers and ranchers from their land and their water rights.
They can't access the water. Their animals can't access their water.
You have to use eminent domain to TAKE their land and pay them for it. Miles and miles of private property. And they will fight for their land and water in court for many years and the court will block construction until it is all settled by the courts.

Texas kept Bush from building a fence over these same rights.

Again, it might not even be necessary to build a wall in these areas. What do the farmers say about illegal crossings in these areas? They may already be an obstacle to illegal immigration in these areas. On the other hand, maybe they are hiring illegals themselves, in which case their opposition takes on another legal meaning.


And of course, the Rio Grande is itself an obstacle to some extent.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

. . . And of course, the Rio Grande is itself an obstacle to some extent.

Some times in some places you can walk across the river and not get wet above your knees.
Sometimes in some places you might get wet up to your neck.
It can also be deep and fast moving at times.




The Rio Grande is disappearing. Demand for water is growing as snow packs shrink, rain patterns shift and average temperatures rise faster than they ever have in the past 11,000 years.
READ MORE

Lots of pictures @

https://www.google.com/search?q=walk...RwlQ8XToAwM%3A

Photo Gallery: Re-Opening The Border At Boquillas | Lorne Matalonlornematalon.com1120 × 629Search by image
Four senior U.S. Border Patrol agents cross the Rio Grande at Big Bend National Park,

Re: Rio Grande

Yes, I think we've had this discussion before.

If we have to wall it off, we should wall it off. Again, national borders are not private property. If people own private property on national borders, they assume some liabilities. Certainly Trump will handle this differently than Texas is handling a lot of things regarding illegal immigration across its border. No doubt Texas is standing in the way of a lot of necessary solutions. And no doubt not all private property owners on the border would be as much of a problem as the farmers. And we assume again that the farmers themselves are not trading in illegal immigration.

TX-TPWD rejects border fence construction