Well, it appears I ran away from Rushy like the coward I am.
It's the only solution that stops foot traffic aside from something like a minefield or a trench. One of those things would cause an international crisis and the other is just plain silly. We could always take the Israeli route, since they found out shooting on sight does wonders for deterring border jumpers. You also need to think about the future. What happens if climate change really does cause Central America to collapse into chaos? We're going to need a lot more than just a wall, but saying the wall won't help at all is nonsense. It's a practical solution and has been throughout human history. Walls aren't 100% effective, but they're not 0% effective.
I'm sure we're both creative enough to think of a half-dozen solutions that are at least as practical as a giant wall. Like moats, or a team of patrols with satellite observers. Walls didn't do shit to stop the Mongols, and in an age of air travel, sea travel, and ladders, it won't stop any significant amount now. At a minimum, I think we can find common ground that the cost of the wall (Numbers vary, but at least in the billions for constructions and hundreds of millions annually to maintain) and a month of a federal government shutdown probably wasn't worth what we'd get out of it if we even built it. Which is looking unlikely.
We won't even touch the hypocrisy of a man who campaigned on Mexico building the wall now asking Americans to pay for it.
This is exactly the problem. You've become convinced it's a race issue because some subset of people might actually have that belief. That is pointless generalization and honestly I thought someone like you wouldn't seriously believe it applies widely to the entire problem. It's a childish oversimplification. It's the equivalent of me saying that anyone against the wall is simply a drug addict that is scared their supplies might get interrupted, which would probably describe a lot of the people against it. Maybe everyone against the wall really is trying to import voters, or maybe they're all people who are avid sex traffickers. Does that make these a valid argument? No, because I think the issue a lot more complicated than just one subset of people with irrational beliefs.
I'd find this argument more compelling if we ever talked about border security with Canada, where it's mostly white people. Terrorists and drugs come from up north as well, including famously the 9/11 hijackers. If trafficking was the real focus, we'd worry about both borders. If immigration is the issue, we'd not be talking about the wall because most undocumented immigrants don't come from foot traffic across the border. There are racists and xenophobes that get to vote same as everyone else, and I have a feeling they've gone overwhelmingly to one guy.
Not that this is the focus on why a wall is a bad idea. It's just such a bad idea that I'd argue the majority of people supporting it are either daft, or pretending to be daft because they don't like brown people.
I doubt you even live in the US.
lol