^ I said it in the same post you quoted before, so you are agreeing with me.
Isn’t a deterrent a partial solution?
Exactly.
Lets just post signs of Hillary. They will claw out their eyes and run away like locusts are chasing them.
To thwart illegal immigration from Mexico they should establish a free trade zone between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. In doing so, we can better align capital with labor and strengthen existing supply chains. As a result, we’ll see cheaper and better goods in the US and a improving Mexican economy which will ultimately serve the US as a market for its goods. Oh wait that’s already happened, net immigration from Mexico is negative.
Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote, but I took your words to mean that a border wall would be effective (i.e. the solution to the problem) if it covered the entire border - my point was simply it’s not a solution because there will be other ways to circumvent the wall, even if it did cover the entire border.
No more half measures, Walter White. It’s long, but epic:
how do you figure?
So it is your position that the economic conditions in the US are so dire and irreversibly negative that net immigration from Mexico will remain negative into perpetuity? In that case, building a wall is a horrible idea because it will make it harder for us to emigrate illegally to Mexico in the future.
No, I’m saying an improving Mexican economy has basically brought immigration from Mexico to zero or perhaps even negative i.e. more people leaving the US and going back to Mexico than people coming from Mexico to the US. NAFTA, as all free trade deals, has had a positive impact on the Mexican economy (US economy as well).
Decreases in the net immigration statistic between the US and Mexico are due in large part to the Obama administration deporting more illegal Mexican immigrants than any US President in history.
I like how democrats are all about NAFTA now. They fucking hated that bill when it was introduced. Now, they’re defending it because “it’s already in place” and other asinine reasons. Either free trade is good or it’s not. You don’t get to change your stance just because of who’s in power.
It was passed by a Democrat. And, no, Democrats aren’t really defending it or the TPP which is the problem. Anyway, the fact that it’s already in place is relevant. Countless jobs and economic developments had been build because of NAFTA, all of which could crumble if you take it away. This is very different than starting a new free trade deal where the pain is generally front loaded.
Ah, how things have changed in 25 years. Look at this vote split for NAFTA. Pretty bipartisan by today’s standards. 102 dems and 132 repubs voted for it.
From the numbers, the BEST numbers
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/
EDIT : Also, interestingly enough it appears Pena is finished. The strongest presidential candidate from Mexico right now is a nationalist Anti-American, Anti-NAFTA dude. Canada must be fuming they have to deal with these jokers lol.
kek 
The UE rate goes negative!
Haven’t you seen The Day After Tomorrow? We’ll all need to enter Mexico to escape climate change sometime in the near future!
Easiest solution is to just annex Mexico and build a wall on their southern border. Wall goes from ~2,000 miles to ~700, plus we get to keep all the cheap labor. Most illegal immigrants are from central America and not Mexico anyway. 
get on your knees and thank President Trump for his stand on immigration. Too late for Europe, it’s crumbling from within. Just in time for America.