I'm not talking about the discussion with his supporters (although that can be extremely difficult)
I find the opposite to be true, and that talking to people who don't like Pres. Trump, are just as irrational due to their hate as his followers.
Last I heard, without a wall, the US was able to hold back the thousands upon thousands of despicable criminals and terrorist that were posing as horribly suffering people in caravans that we're coming to America in October and November and threatened the American border. How did that happen without a wall?
Numbers have dropped to 370k, which is still a boat load of people. I think Pres. Trump, pulled up the welcome mat and it is how it has happened. Because where I live I saw a immediate reduction of Illegals in Ohio once he went into his office. Also, keep in mind that some states like California, probably make no arrests in this regard and the numbers are probably much higher. We did not have sanctuary cities back in the 80-90s though the reporters do not mention this in their articles. But you have a huge state with a big latino population that is not cooperating. But reporters omit this because it does not fit their narrative.
Right now 14 million of California's population is Latino. In 1990 the population were 7.5 Million Latino.
So, this also could explain some of the drop. Here is a great read on it:
Indeed, the number of individuals apprehended annually by Border Patrol officers has declined substantially from peaks in the 1980s and 1990s, a drop in line with heightened enforcement efforts beginning under President Bill Clinton. At the same time, USBP employs almost five times as many agents today as it did 25 years ago, meaning that each USBP agent is responsible for fewer apprehensions.
But this absolute view does not tell the whole story. While the total number of apprehensions has dropped, the composition of the group of people apprehended has shifted dramatically. Specifically, the number of people coming as families ("family units" in CBP jargon), and unaccompanied children ("UACs") has spiked, accounting for a majority of apprehensions in recent months.
At the same time, destabilization and violence in the "northern triangle"—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—have driven families and children to make the long, often dangerous trek north to attempt to illegally enter the United States. Whether such migrants qualify as humanitarian refugees or economic migrants is a matter of debate, with the line between those categories often blurry.
The boom in unaccompanied minors and family units is further exacerbated by laws which provide preferential treatment to UACs from the northern triangle and children with or without their guardians. Under the 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, DHS is obliged to release unaccompanied minors from "non-contiguous" countries (i.e. not Mexico) into the interior. And under current interpretation of the 1997 Flores settlement agreement, DHS can only detain any child—accompanied or not—for 20 days before releasing him into the interior.
The consequence of these rules is that minors, especially from non-contiguous countries, can expect to be released into the interior upon apprehension. Under previous policy, adults traveling with children expected not to be separated, and therefore also to be released. The Trump administration has attempted to address the Flores loophole first through its controversial family separation policy and then, subsequently, by instituting a rule meant to overturn Flores—said rule is likely to face legal challenges.
"Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl," Trump said Tuesday.
The president is right about that. Most of the methamphetamine in the United States—which killed almost 11,000 people in 2017—is produced in cartel-run Mexican super-labs over the border. Most heroin is also Mexican, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency. Most cocaine is produced in Colombia, but almost 40 percent is smuggled through Mexico. And most fentanyl is produced in China, but Mexican drug traffickers play a role in the trade.
In other words, the southern border faces not only surging family and child immigration, but also an overwhelming drug problem—a dangerous combination.
Walls work and this should not even be a talking point. We have walls around prisons because they work. Are they 100% effective, no, nothing is but they work and have worked for centuries. People still escape prison but you can believe that a lot less people do because of the walls. Are you for removing the walls?
Fiscally, is the real question, would the wall save us money or be a waste. Is the cut down on drugs, worth it?
1. Walls don’t work. Illegal immigrants have tunneled underneath and/or erected ramps up and down walls to simply drive over them. People find a way. When East Germany erected its wall, it created a military zone, staffed by booted, machine-gun carrying guards ready to shoot to kill. Yet thousands managed to make it to West Germany anyway. More to the point, do we really want to model ourselves after communist East Germany?
2. Most illegal immigrants are “overstayers.” They come to the US legally — for vacations, business, to study, etc. — and then STAY past their visas. By 2012, overstayers accounted for 58% (THE MAJORITY!) of all unauthorized immigrants. A wall is meaningless here!
3. Walls have little impact on drugs being brought in to the US. According to the DEA, almost all drugs come in through legal points of entry, hidden in secret containers and/or among legit goods in tractor-trailers. A wall will have little to no impact on the influx of drugs into our country.
4. It’s environmentally impractical. Walls have a hard time making it through extreme weather. For example, in 2011, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of STEEL fencing. Torrential rains and raging waters do serious damage. Also, conservative sources generally do not address the environmental harm that walls create, but there is plenty of documentation available that show its potential for irreparable damage to both plant and animal life.
5. A wall would forces the U.S. government to take land from private citizens in eminent domain battles. Private citizens own much of the land slated for the wall. The costs of the government snatching private land — and the legal battles that would ensue — are incalculable.
6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult.
7. Border patrol agents say, “Walls are meaningless without agents and technology to back them up.” Are we prepared to pour countless billions annually — after the wall is built — to create a nearly 2,000 mile, militarized 24-hour surveillance border operation? Because according to patrol agents, that’s the only way a wall would work. Again, are we really, going to use East Germany, a brutal communist state, as our model here?
8. Where walls have been built, there was “no discernable impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens.” In other words, they came in elsewhere, primarily where natural barriers such as water or mountainous regions precluded a wall.
9. Trump’s $5 billion is a laughable drop in the bucket for what would ACTUALLY be needed. For example, according to the Cato Institute: An estimate for a border wall area that only covered 700 miles was originally 1.2 billion. How much did it REALLY cost? SEVEN BILLION. And that’s only for 700 miles. Whatever we think it’s going to cost, experience shows us we have to multiply it by more than 500%.
10. According to MIT engineers, the wall would cost $31.2 billion. Homeland Security estimates it at $22 billion. Given the pattern of spending mentioned in number 10 (plus Murphy’s Law), that means we’re really talking about pouring endless billions into something that doesn’t even work. And, of course, we taxpayers will be footing the bill, not Mexico. Given all the drawbacks, is that REALLY the best use of our taxes?Conservative Sources Outlining the Uselessness of Trump’s Wall:
The Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work
Former Reagan staffer and Tea-Party liaison: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/10/12/the-conservative-case-against-a-border-fence-trying-to-stop-illegal-immigration-with-a-really-big-fence-would-be-a-futile-waste-of-money
Chicago Tribune (conservative paper): https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-perspec-chapman-trump-wall-mexico-immigration-20180314-story.html
The National Review (conservative magazine): https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/donald-trump-border-wall-plan-ridiculous-guaranteed-failure/
Nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute (MPI) think tank: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration