Why is a border wall such a polarising issue in American politics?












6















I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling. It doesn't seem inherently unreasonable that the US have one as well, especially given the border with Mexico is well known for illegal crossing and drug smuggling.



Why is this seemingly normal function of government seen as such a contentious issue that it's worth shutting down the government for, what do the Democrats have to gain politically from the continued illegal activity on the border, surely democrats are equally effected by the criminal behaviour as well ?



They could make a deal and get something that would make a real material difference to the electorate, don't see why they're going to the mat for this.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    Related: What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?, Why did many voters support a border wall instead of other border control methods?, Long term, does a Trump's wall cost more than it saves per year?

    – yannis
    8 hours ago






  • 2





    You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.

    – user1450877
    8 hours ago











  • Not really an answer, but I suspect the truth behind this has more to do with the internal politics of the Democratic Party. They haven't recovered from losing the 2016 Presidential election. Then there is the theory without evidence that Democrats want illegals for the votes. I'm convinced it is purely within the Democratic Party due to the talking points. Dems shifted more than Republicans in the last 10 years on immigration. That or the US is just bored because bored people fight over the dumbest things.

    – David S
    7 hours ago






  • 4





    Possible duplicate of What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?

    – Alexander O'Mara
    6 hours ago
















6















I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling. It doesn't seem inherently unreasonable that the US have one as well, especially given the border with Mexico is well known for illegal crossing and drug smuggling.



Why is this seemingly normal function of government seen as such a contentious issue that it's worth shutting down the government for, what do the Democrats have to gain politically from the continued illegal activity on the border, surely democrats are equally effected by the criminal behaviour as well ?



They could make a deal and get something that would make a real material difference to the electorate, don't see why they're going to the mat for this.










share|improve this question




















  • 3





    Related: What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?, Why did many voters support a border wall instead of other border control methods?, Long term, does a Trump's wall cost more than it saves per year?

    – yannis
    8 hours ago






  • 2





    You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.

    – user1450877
    8 hours ago











  • Not really an answer, but I suspect the truth behind this has more to do with the internal politics of the Democratic Party. They haven't recovered from losing the 2016 Presidential election. Then there is the theory without evidence that Democrats want illegals for the votes. I'm convinced it is purely within the Democratic Party due to the talking points. Dems shifted more than Republicans in the last 10 years on immigration. That or the US is just bored because bored people fight over the dumbest things.

    – David S
    7 hours ago






  • 4





    Possible duplicate of What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?

    – Alexander O'Mara
    6 hours ago














6












6








6


1






I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling. It doesn't seem inherently unreasonable that the US have one as well, especially given the border with Mexico is well known for illegal crossing and drug smuggling.



Why is this seemingly normal function of government seen as such a contentious issue that it's worth shutting down the government for, what do the Democrats have to gain politically from the continued illegal activity on the border, surely democrats are equally effected by the criminal behaviour as well ?



They could make a deal and get something that would make a real material difference to the electorate, don't see why they're going to the mat for this.










share|improve this question
















I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling. It doesn't seem inherently unreasonable that the US have one as well, especially given the border with Mexico is well known for illegal crossing and drug smuggling.



Why is this seemingly normal function of government seen as such a contentious issue that it's worth shutting down the government for, what do the Democrats have to gain politically from the continued illegal activity on the border, surely democrats are equally effected by the criminal behaviour as well ?



They could make a deal and get something that would make a real material difference to the electorate, don't see why they're going to the mat for this.







united-states trump-wall






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago









yannis

6,92054368




6,92054368










asked 9 hours ago









user1450877user1450877

1,19259




1,19259








  • 3





    Related: What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?, Why did many voters support a border wall instead of other border control methods?, Long term, does a Trump's wall cost more than it saves per year?

    – yannis
    8 hours ago






  • 2





    You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.

    – user1450877
    8 hours ago











  • Not really an answer, but I suspect the truth behind this has more to do with the internal politics of the Democratic Party. They haven't recovered from losing the 2016 Presidential election. Then there is the theory without evidence that Democrats want illegals for the votes. I'm convinced it is purely within the Democratic Party due to the talking points. Dems shifted more than Republicans in the last 10 years on immigration. That or the US is just bored because bored people fight over the dumbest things.

    – David S
    7 hours ago






  • 4





    Possible duplicate of What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?

    – Alexander O'Mara
    6 hours ago














  • 3





    Related: What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?, Why did many voters support a border wall instead of other border control methods?, Long term, does a Trump's wall cost more than it saves per year?

    – yannis
    8 hours ago






  • 2





    You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.

    – user1450877
    8 hours ago











  • Not really an answer, but I suspect the truth behind this has more to do with the internal politics of the Democratic Party. They haven't recovered from losing the 2016 Presidential election. Then there is the theory without evidence that Democrats want illegals for the votes. I'm convinced it is purely within the Democratic Party due to the talking points. Dems shifted more than Republicans in the last 10 years on immigration. That or the US is just bored because bored people fight over the dumbest things.

    – David S
    7 hours ago






  • 4





    Possible duplicate of What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?

    – Alexander O'Mara
    6 hours ago








3




3





Related: What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?, Why did many voters support a border wall instead of other border control methods?, Long term, does a Trump's wall cost more than it saves per year?

– yannis
8 hours ago





Related: What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?, Why did many voters support a border wall instead of other border control methods?, Long term, does a Trump's wall cost more than it saves per year?

– yannis
8 hours ago




2




2





You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.

– user1450877
8 hours ago





You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.

– user1450877
8 hours ago













Not really an answer, but I suspect the truth behind this has more to do with the internal politics of the Democratic Party. They haven't recovered from losing the 2016 Presidential election. Then there is the theory without evidence that Democrats want illegals for the votes. I'm convinced it is purely within the Democratic Party due to the talking points. Dems shifted more than Republicans in the last 10 years on immigration. That or the US is just bored because bored people fight over the dumbest things.

– David S
7 hours ago





Not really an answer, but I suspect the truth behind this has more to do with the internal politics of the Democratic Party. They haven't recovered from losing the 2016 Presidential election. Then there is the theory without evidence that Democrats want illegals for the votes. I'm convinced it is purely within the Democratic Party due to the talking points. Dems shifted more than Republicans in the last 10 years on immigration. That or the US is just bored because bored people fight over the dumbest things.

– David S
7 hours ago




4




4





Possible duplicate of What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?

– Alexander O'Mara
6 hours ago





Possible duplicate of What are the primary objections Democrats have to a border wall?

– Alexander O'Mara
6 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2














tl;dr: The wall is only an idea with lots of blanks. People on different sides of the divide fill in the blanks differently, so they end up with different conclusions.





Until recently, a continuous physical barrier along the entire USA-Mexico border was not widely discussed as a realistic solution to an actual problem at the border. This changed when The Wall was introduced in the 2016 presidential race as a talking point and found to resonate well with a subset of voters.



It's all about the "idea" of The Wall. At this point there is still nothing more than the idea. An concrete project to build the wall, and a plan for how it would look, or even what it would do, is not part of the discussion. Such a plan to have a discussion about simply doesn't exist.



And it gets worse. On top of just not knowing what the wall is, nobody managed to clearly and fully define the problem the wall is supposed to solve. Right now, any attempt to dive into the facts of the wall discussion will fail at before it starts, because none of the involved politicians can enumerate the actual real life problems it is supposed to solve, let alone explain how it does so better than alternative options.



The wall is a simple symbol, which convinces some voters because it's easy to make strong assertions about it. Assertions which carry many implied falsehoods that influence voters. Take OPs words "Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling" which imply 3 things:




  1. That continuous walls between countries are perfectly normal

  2. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact smuggling

  3. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact illegal immigration


OPs words are true, yet they carry with them 3 implied statements, of which not a single one is true.



The divide over the idea of the wall is magnified due to the unfortunate fact that in the US there is a very peculiar situation where one of the major news networks specializes in the intentional spread of such false and misleading information through implied false statements. (here come the downvotes by FOX viewers)



All in all, a wall is a simple solution that doesn't address a complex problem, except in the minds of some of the voters. And both sides - one much more so than the other - play around the issue by avoiding any actually relevant hard facts and data, to avoid being called out by the other side.






share|improve this answer





















  • 1





    "Until recently a wall was seen to be only a talking point, rather than a serious solution to address the underlying problem"; This is not correct. Discussions of a physical barrier along the US/Mexico border go all the way back to at least the 1980s. Long sections of fencing were constructed in the 1990s, and Congress even passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. The only thing that's changed is that the word "wall" is now being used to describe it.

    – Wes Sayeed
    5 hours ago













  • @WesSayeed along sections of the border, not along the entire border which parts of it are owned by parities that have treaties with the government saying that they have control of it instead of the government.

    – Joe W
    5 hours ago











  • @WesSayeed Swapped that part with clearer, more explicit language. Thanks for the feedback.

    – Peter
    5 hours ago



















2














From your comment under the question:




You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.




I think your comment is to the point. There is a philosophical objection. Mainly, the current administration has planned to put millions off of health care yet they plan to spend billions (5.7B$ now, but how long until more is needed?) on a wall.



Now look at that from the Democrats perspective. They can let it happen and be seen as enabling Trump. On the other hand, as they do now, they can take a stand. Obviously, taking a stand is not without disadvantages: the shutdown has many disadvantages for the public, especially public servants.



Either Trump gives in and the Democrats have a moral victory or the shutdown carries on and the pressure (on everyone) grows. Eventually, someone will give in (or new elections happen) and the electorate will choose a side.






share|improve this answer

































    0














    The short answer is that some private citizens and elected officials think a border wall will substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting as a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security and other private citizens and elected officials think that a border wall will not substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is not a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security.



    The issue might presently appear to some to be particularly polarizing because it is a case of first impression and is a live controversy directly involving or affecting several nations and millions of people that has not been settled.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 4





      I don't think disagreement about the effectiveness of the wall is the issue. If the effectiveness of government programs costing 5 billion or more was sufficient reason to shut down government then the government would be permanently shut down.

      – user1450877
      5 hours ago











    • @user1450877 "I don't think" The language at your comment is consistent with and demonstrates the reason for the observation made at the answer. For each individual who "thinks" the proposed project is a good idea, there roughly exists an individual who "thinks" the proposed project is not a good idea. The matter is not settled. Therefore polarization could be a reasonable description of the current events through a neutral lens. See politics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer

      – guest271314
      5 hours ago













    • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

      – MolonLabe
      1 hour ago











    • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

      – MolonLabe
      1 hour ago











    • We spend $50 billion dollars a year on foreign aid with no tangible returns on investment. I agree that it's not about the $

      – MolonLabe
      1 hour ago











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37875%2fwhy-is-a-border-wall-such-a-polarising-issue-in-american-politics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    tl;dr: The wall is only an idea with lots of blanks. People on different sides of the divide fill in the blanks differently, so they end up with different conclusions.





    Until recently, a continuous physical barrier along the entire USA-Mexico border was not widely discussed as a realistic solution to an actual problem at the border. This changed when The Wall was introduced in the 2016 presidential race as a talking point and found to resonate well with a subset of voters.



    It's all about the "idea" of The Wall. At this point there is still nothing more than the idea. An concrete project to build the wall, and a plan for how it would look, or even what it would do, is not part of the discussion. Such a plan to have a discussion about simply doesn't exist.



    And it gets worse. On top of just not knowing what the wall is, nobody managed to clearly and fully define the problem the wall is supposed to solve. Right now, any attempt to dive into the facts of the wall discussion will fail at before it starts, because none of the involved politicians can enumerate the actual real life problems it is supposed to solve, let alone explain how it does so better than alternative options.



    The wall is a simple symbol, which convinces some voters because it's easy to make strong assertions about it. Assertions which carry many implied falsehoods that influence voters. Take OPs words "Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling" which imply 3 things:




    1. That continuous walls between countries are perfectly normal

    2. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact smuggling

    3. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact illegal immigration


    OPs words are true, yet they carry with them 3 implied statements, of which not a single one is true.



    The divide over the idea of the wall is magnified due to the unfortunate fact that in the US there is a very peculiar situation where one of the major news networks specializes in the intentional spread of such false and misleading information through implied false statements. (here come the downvotes by FOX viewers)



    All in all, a wall is a simple solution that doesn't address a complex problem, except in the minds of some of the voters. And both sides - one much more so than the other - play around the issue by avoiding any actually relevant hard facts and data, to avoid being called out by the other side.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      "Until recently a wall was seen to be only a talking point, rather than a serious solution to address the underlying problem"; This is not correct. Discussions of a physical barrier along the US/Mexico border go all the way back to at least the 1980s. Long sections of fencing were constructed in the 1990s, and Congress even passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. The only thing that's changed is that the word "wall" is now being used to describe it.

      – Wes Sayeed
      5 hours ago













    • @WesSayeed along sections of the border, not along the entire border which parts of it are owned by parities that have treaties with the government saying that they have control of it instead of the government.

      – Joe W
      5 hours ago











    • @WesSayeed Swapped that part with clearer, more explicit language. Thanks for the feedback.

      – Peter
      5 hours ago
















    2














    tl;dr: The wall is only an idea with lots of blanks. People on different sides of the divide fill in the blanks differently, so they end up with different conclusions.





    Until recently, a continuous physical barrier along the entire USA-Mexico border was not widely discussed as a realistic solution to an actual problem at the border. This changed when The Wall was introduced in the 2016 presidential race as a talking point and found to resonate well with a subset of voters.



    It's all about the "idea" of The Wall. At this point there is still nothing more than the idea. An concrete project to build the wall, and a plan for how it would look, or even what it would do, is not part of the discussion. Such a plan to have a discussion about simply doesn't exist.



    And it gets worse. On top of just not knowing what the wall is, nobody managed to clearly and fully define the problem the wall is supposed to solve. Right now, any attempt to dive into the facts of the wall discussion will fail at before it starts, because none of the involved politicians can enumerate the actual real life problems it is supposed to solve, let alone explain how it does so better than alternative options.



    The wall is a simple symbol, which convinces some voters because it's easy to make strong assertions about it. Assertions which carry many implied falsehoods that influence voters. Take OPs words "Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling" which imply 3 things:




    1. That continuous walls between countries are perfectly normal

    2. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact smuggling

    3. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact illegal immigration


    OPs words are true, yet they carry with them 3 implied statements, of which not a single one is true.



    The divide over the idea of the wall is magnified due to the unfortunate fact that in the US there is a very peculiar situation where one of the major news networks specializes in the intentional spread of such false and misleading information through implied false statements. (here come the downvotes by FOX viewers)



    All in all, a wall is a simple solution that doesn't address a complex problem, except in the minds of some of the voters. And both sides - one much more so than the other - play around the issue by avoiding any actually relevant hard facts and data, to avoid being called out by the other side.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      "Until recently a wall was seen to be only a talking point, rather than a serious solution to address the underlying problem"; This is not correct. Discussions of a physical barrier along the US/Mexico border go all the way back to at least the 1980s. Long sections of fencing were constructed in the 1990s, and Congress even passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. The only thing that's changed is that the word "wall" is now being used to describe it.

      – Wes Sayeed
      5 hours ago













    • @WesSayeed along sections of the border, not along the entire border which parts of it are owned by parities that have treaties with the government saying that they have control of it instead of the government.

      – Joe W
      5 hours ago











    • @WesSayeed Swapped that part with clearer, more explicit language. Thanks for the feedback.

      – Peter
      5 hours ago














    2












    2








    2







    tl;dr: The wall is only an idea with lots of blanks. People on different sides of the divide fill in the blanks differently, so they end up with different conclusions.





    Until recently, a continuous physical barrier along the entire USA-Mexico border was not widely discussed as a realistic solution to an actual problem at the border. This changed when The Wall was introduced in the 2016 presidential race as a talking point and found to resonate well with a subset of voters.



    It's all about the "idea" of The Wall. At this point there is still nothing more than the idea. An concrete project to build the wall, and a plan for how it would look, or even what it would do, is not part of the discussion. Such a plan to have a discussion about simply doesn't exist.



    And it gets worse. On top of just not knowing what the wall is, nobody managed to clearly and fully define the problem the wall is supposed to solve. Right now, any attempt to dive into the facts of the wall discussion will fail at before it starts, because none of the involved politicians can enumerate the actual real life problems it is supposed to solve, let alone explain how it does so better than alternative options.



    The wall is a simple symbol, which convinces some voters because it's easy to make strong assertions about it. Assertions which carry many implied falsehoods that influence voters. Take OPs words "Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling" which imply 3 things:




    1. That continuous walls between countries are perfectly normal

    2. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact smuggling

    3. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact illegal immigration


    OPs words are true, yet they carry with them 3 implied statements, of which not a single one is true.



    The divide over the idea of the wall is magnified due to the unfortunate fact that in the US there is a very peculiar situation where one of the major news networks specializes in the intentional spread of such false and misleading information through implied false statements. (here come the downvotes by FOX viewers)



    All in all, a wall is a simple solution that doesn't address a complex problem, except in the minds of some of the voters. And both sides - one much more so than the other - play around the issue by avoiding any actually relevant hard facts and data, to avoid being called out by the other side.






    share|improve this answer















    tl;dr: The wall is only an idea with lots of blanks. People on different sides of the divide fill in the blanks differently, so they end up with different conclusions.





    Until recently, a continuous physical barrier along the entire USA-Mexico border was not widely discussed as a realistic solution to an actual problem at the border. This changed when The Wall was introduced in the 2016 presidential race as a talking point and found to resonate well with a subset of voters.



    It's all about the "idea" of The Wall. At this point there is still nothing more than the idea. An concrete project to build the wall, and a plan for how it would look, or even what it would do, is not part of the discussion. Such a plan to have a discussion about simply doesn't exist.



    And it gets worse. On top of just not knowing what the wall is, nobody managed to clearly and fully define the problem the wall is supposed to solve. Right now, any attempt to dive into the facts of the wall discussion will fail at before it starts, because none of the involved politicians can enumerate the actual real life problems it is supposed to solve, let alone explain how it does so better than alternative options.



    The wall is a simple symbol, which convinces some voters because it's easy to make strong assertions about it. Assertions which carry many implied falsehoods that influence voters. Take OPs words "Many countries around the world have a hard border with a physical barrier in place to stop illegal crossing/smuggling" which imply 3 things:




    1. That continuous walls between countries are perfectly normal

    2. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact smuggling

    3. That Trump's wall can stop or significantly impact illegal immigration


    OPs words are true, yet they carry with them 3 implied statements, of which not a single one is true.



    The divide over the idea of the wall is magnified due to the unfortunate fact that in the US there is a very peculiar situation where one of the major news networks specializes in the intentional spread of such false and misleading information through implied false statements. (here come the downvotes by FOX viewers)



    All in all, a wall is a simple solution that doesn't address a complex problem, except in the minds of some of the voters. And both sides - one much more so than the other - play around the issue by avoiding any actually relevant hard facts and data, to avoid being called out by the other side.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 5 hours ago

























    answered 6 hours ago









    PeterPeter

    2,070613




    2,070613








    • 1





      "Until recently a wall was seen to be only a talking point, rather than a serious solution to address the underlying problem"; This is not correct. Discussions of a physical barrier along the US/Mexico border go all the way back to at least the 1980s. Long sections of fencing were constructed in the 1990s, and Congress even passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. The only thing that's changed is that the word "wall" is now being used to describe it.

      – Wes Sayeed
      5 hours ago













    • @WesSayeed along sections of the border, not along the entire border which parts of it are owned by parities that have treaties with the government saying that they have control of it instead of the government.

      – Joe W
      5 hours ago











    • @WesSayeed Swapped that part with clearer, more explicit language. Thanks for the feedback.

      – Peter
      5 hours ago














    • 1





      "Until recently a wall was seen to be only a talking point, rather than a serious solution to address the underlying problem"; This is not correct. Discussions of a physical barrier along the US/Mexico border go all the way back to at least the 1980s. Long sections of fencing were constructed in the 1990s, and Congress even passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. The only thing that's changed is that the word "wall" is now being used to describe it.

      – Wes Sayeed
      5 hours ago













    • @WesSayeed along sections of the border, not along the entire border which parts of it are owned by parities that have treaties with the government saying that they have control of it instead of the government.

      – Joe W
      5 hours ago











    • @WesSayeed Swapped that part with clearer, more explicit language. Thanks for the feedback.

      – Peter
      5 hours ago








    1




    1





    "Until recently a wall was seen to be only a talking point, rather than a serious solution to address the underlying problem"; This is not correct. Discussions of a physical barrier along the US/Mexico border go all the way back to at least the 1980s. Long sections of fencing were constructed in the 1990s, and Congress even passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. The only thing that's changed is that the word "wall" is now being used to describe it.

    – Wes Sayeed
    5 hours ago







    "Until recently a wall was seen to be only a talking point, rather than a serious solution to address the underlying problem"; This is not correct. Discussions of a physical barrier along the US/Mexico border go all the way back to at least the 1980s. Long sections of fencing were constructed in the 1990s, and Congress even passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. The only thing that's changed is that the word "wall" is now being used to describe it.

    – Wes Sayeed
    5 hours ago















    @WesSayeed along sections of the border, not along the entire border which parts of it are owned by parities that have treaties with the government saying that they have control of it instead of the government.

    – Joe W
    5 hours ago





    @WesSayeed along sections of the border, not along the entire border which parts of it are owned by parities that have treaties with the government saying that they have control of it instead of the government.

    – Joe W
    5 hours ago













    @WesSayeed Swapped that part with clearer, more explicit language. Thanks for the feedback.

    – Peter
    5 hours ago





    @WesSayeed Swapped that part with clearer, more explicit language. Thanks for the feedback.

    – Peter
    5 hours ago











    2














    From your comment under the question:




    You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.




    I think your comment is to the point. There is a philosophical objection. Mainly, the current administration has planned to put millions off of health care yet they plan to spend billions (5.7B$ now, but how long until more is needed?) on a wall.



    Now look at that from the Democrats perspective. They can let it happen and be seen as enabling Trump. On the other hand, as they do now, they can take a stand. Obviously, taking a stand is not without disadvantages: the shutdown has many disadvantages for the public, especially public servants.



    Either Trump gives in and the Democrats have a moral victory or the shutdown carries on and the pressure (on everyone) grows. Eventually, someone will give in (or new elections happen) and the electorate will choose a side.






    share|improve this answer






























      2














      From your comment under the question:




      You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.




      I think your comment is to the point. There is a philosophical objection. Mainly, the current administration has planned to put millions off of health care yet they plan to spend billions (5.7B$ now, but how long until more is needed?) on a wall.



      Now look at that from the Democrats perspective. They can let it happen and be seen as enabling Trump. On the other hand, as they do now, they can take a stand. Obviously, taking a stand is not without disadvantages: the shutdown has many disadvantages for the public, especially public servants.



      Either Trump gives in and the Democrats have a moral victory or the shutdown carries on and the pressure (on everyone) grows. Eventually, someone will give in (or new elections happen) and the electorate will choose a side.






      share|improve this answer




























        2












        2








        2







        From your comment under the question:




        You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.




        I think your comment is to the point. There is a philosophical objection. Mainly, the current administration has planned to put millions off of health care yet they plan to spend billions (5.7B$ now, but how long until more is needed?) on a wall.



        Now look at that from the Democrats perspective. They can let it happen and be seen as enabling Trump. On the other hand, as they do now, they can take a stand. Obviously, taking a stand is not without disadvantages: the shutdown has many disadvantages for the public, especially public servants.



        Either Trump gives in and the Democrats have a moral victory or the shutdown carries on and the pressure (on everyone) grows. Eventually, someone will give in (or new elections happen) and the electorate will choose a side.






        share|improve this answer















        From your comment under the question:




        You don't shut down the government over a disagreement about the cost benefit analysis of something that costs 5 billion dollars. There is obviously some deeply political/philosophical objection to the wall.




        I think your comment is to the point. There is a philosophical objection. Mainly, the current administration has planned to put millions off of health care yet they plan to spend billions (5.7B$ now, but how long until more is needed?) on a wall.



        Now look at that from the Democrats perspective. They can let it happen and be seen as enabling Trump. On the other hand, as they do now, they can take a stand. Obviously, taking a stand is not without disadvantages: the shutdown has many disadvantages for the public, especially public servants.



        Either Trump gives in and the Democrats have a moral victory or the shutdown carries on and the pressure (on everyone) grows. Eventually, someone will give in (or new elections happen) and the electorate will choose a side.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 3 hours ago

























        answered 5 hours ago









        JJJJJJ

        3,22821537




        3,22821537























            0














            The short answer is that some private citizens and elected officials think a border wall will substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting as a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security and other private citizens and elected officials think that a border wall will not substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is not a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security.



            The issue might presently appear to some to be particularly polarizing because it is a case of first impression and is a live controversy directly involving or affecting several nations and millions of people that has not been settled.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 4





              I don't think disagreement about the effectiveness of the wall is the issue. If the effectiveness of government programs costing 5 billion or more was sufficient reason to shut down government then the government would be permanently shut down.

              – user1450877
              5 hours ago











            • @user1450877 "I don't think" The language at your comment is consistent with and demonstrates the reason for the observation made at the answer. For each individual who "thinks" the proposed project is a good idea, there roughly exists an individual who "thinks" the proposed project is not a good idea. The matter is not settled. Therefore polarization could be a reasonable description of the current events through a neutral lens. See politics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer

              – guest271314
              5 hours ago













            • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago











            • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago











            • We spend $50 billion dollars a year on foreign aid with no tangible returns on investment. I agree that it's not about the $

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago
















            0














            The short answer is that some private citizens and elected officials think a border wall will substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting as a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security and other private citizens and elected officials think that a border wall will not substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is not a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security.



            The issue might presently appear to some to be particularly polarizing because it is a case of first impression and is a live controversy directly involving or affecting several nations and millions of people that has not been settled.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 4





              I don't think disagreement about the effectiveness of the wall is the issue. If the effectiveness of government programs costing 5 billion or more was sufficient reason to shut down government then the government would be permanently shut down.

              – user1450877
              5 hours ago











            • @user1450877 "I don't think" The language at your comment is consistent with and demonstrates the reason for the observation made at the answer. For each individual who "thinks" the proposed project is a good idea, there roughly exists an individual who "thinks" the proposed project is not a good idea. The matter is not settled. Therefore polarization could be a reasonable description of the current events through a neutral lens. See politics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer

              – guest271314
              5 hours ago













            • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago











            • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago











            • We spend $50 billion dollars a year on foreign aid with no tangible returns on investment. I agree that it's not about the $

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago














            0












            0








            0







            The short answer is that some private citizens and elected officials think a border wall will substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting as a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security and other private citizens and elected officials think that a border wall will not substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is not a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security.



            The issue might presently appear to some to be particularly polarizing because it is a case of first impression and is a live controversy directly involving or affecting several nations and millions of people that has not been settled.






            share|improve this answer













            The short answer is that some private citizens and elected officials think a border wall will substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting as a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security and other private citizens and elected officials think that a border wall will not substantially contribute to the policy objective of acting a deterrent to illegal immigration and drug smuggling and is not a sound proposed investment in U.S. national security.



            The issue might presently appear to some to be particularly polarizing because it is a case of first impression and is a live controversy directly involving or affecting several nations and millions of people that has not been settled.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 7 hours ago









            guest271314guest271314

            1,56616




            1,56616








            • 4





              I don't think disagreement about the effectiveness of the wall is the issue. If the effectiveness of government programs costing 5 billion or more was sufficient reason to shut down government then the government would be permanently shut down.

              – user1450877
              5 hours ago











            • @user1450877 "I don't think" The language at your comment is consistent with and demonstrates the reason for the observation made at the answer. For each individual who "thinks" the proposed project is a good idea, there roughly exists an individual who "thinks" the proposed project is not a good idea. The matter is not settled. Therefore polarization could be a reasonable description of the current events through a neutral lens. See politics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer

              – guest271314
              5 hours ago













            • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago











            • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago











            • We spend $50 billion dollars a year on foreign aid with no tangible returns on investment. I agree that it's not about the $

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago














            • 4





              I don't think disagreement about the effectiveness of the wall is the issue. If the effectiveness of government programs costing 5 billion or more was sufficient reason to shut down government then the government would be permanently shut down.

              – user1450877
              5 hours ago











            • @user1450877 "I don't think" The language at your comment is consistent with and demonstrates the reason for the observation made at the answer. For each individual who "thinks" the proposed project is a good idea, there roughly exists an individual who "thinks" the proposed project is not a good idea. The matter is not settled. Therefore polarization could be a reasonable description of the current events through a neutral lens. See politics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer

              – guest271314
              5 hours ago













            • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago











            • @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago











            • We spend $50 billion dollars a year on foreign aid with no tangible returns on investment. I agree that it's not about the $

              – MolonLabe
              1 hour ago








            4




            4





            I don't think disagreement about the effectiveness of the wall is the issue. If the effectiveness of government programs costing 5 billion or more was sufficient reason to shut down government then the government would be permanently shut down.

            – user1450877
            5 hours ago





            I don't think disagreement about the effectiveness of the wall is the issue. If the effectiveness of government programs costing 5 billion or more was sufficient reason to shut down government then the government would be permanently shut down.

            – user1450877
            5 hours ago













            @user1450877 "I don't think" The language at your comment is consistent with and demonstrates the reason for the observation made at the answer. For each individual who "thinks" the proposed project is a good idea, there roughly exists an individual who "thinks" the proposed project is not a good idea. The matter is not settled. Therefore polarization could be a reasonable description of the current events through a neutral lens. See politics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer

            – guest271314
            5 hours ago







            @user1450877 "I don't think" The language at your comment is consistent with and demonstrates the reason for the observation made at the answer. For each individual who "thinks" the proposed project is a good idea, there roughly exists an individual who "thinks" the proposed project is not a good idea. The matter is not settled. Therefore polarization could be a reasonable description of the current events through a neutral lens. See politics.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer

            – guest271314
            5 hours ago















            @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

            – MolonLabe
            1 hour ago





            @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

            – MolonLabe
            1 hour ago













            @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

            – MolonLabe
            1 hour ago





            @1450877 especially when you consider that as late as a decade ago it was the Democrats that wanted to stop illegal immigration because they said it hurts low income American workers and it was the GOP that resisted because the large corporate donors wanted the low cost wages.

            – MolonLabe
            1 hour ago













            We spend $50 billion dollars a year on foreign aid with no tangible returns on investment. I agree that it's not about the $

            – MolonLabe
            1 hour ago





            We spend $50 billion dollars a year on foreign aid with no tangible returns on investment. I agree that it's not about the $

            – MolonLabe
            1 hour ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37875%2fwhy-is-a-border-wall-such-a-polarising-issue-in-american-politics%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

            How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

            TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'