Then what was your original statement for then?

The situation described in another comment:

"The first was apprehended by local police while attempting to pawn the stolen TV. The second one was shot and ended up in the ER. I suppose I can't speak for the third, but if you had to take an educated guess..."

That's still basically prejudice. You don't actually know who committed the third crime, but you are all too happy to assume.

I'm sorry for what your family has been through. Your approach to arguing this isn't a good approach for an environment like HN.

Sure I'll concede to that, though I wouldn't call it prejudice, I'd call it bias. Ignoring the last one, those were two crimes that could have prevented if we secured our borders and funneled migrants through official ports of entry. There are many cases like this, even if the stats say the border counties are safer than other counties in the state. The problem still exists and is preventable.

If they are illegal immigrants, what makes you think they would even cooperate with being funneled through official ports of entry?

We have official ports of entry. Building a wall might make it harder for illegals to cross, but they already face substantial barriers. Some of them die every single year while crossing the desert on foot or taking other risks.

The idea is to not give them a choice whether or not they take the official port of entry, it's to make it the only option.

Currently the border either has a low height fence that can be climbed over, holes that can be crawled under, or no fencing at all. We should install the proposed wall with surveillance.

After crossing the desert there aren't many people that will be able to scale a 30 foot steel fence. The current design can't be dug under or destroyed in a reasonable time.

The sections that have gone up have drastically reduced crossings.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work

"For example, when we installed a border wall in the Yuma Sector, we have seen border apprehensions decrease by 90 percent."

"On Sunday, when a violent mob of 1,000 people stormed our Southern border, we found the newly constructed portions of the wall to be very effective. In the area of the breach, a group of people tore a hole in the old landing mat fence constructed decades ago and pushed across the border. U.S. Border Patrol agents who responded to the area ultimately dispersed the crowd, which had become assaultive, and apprehended several individuals. All of the individuals were either apprehended or retreated into Mexico. That evening, the fence was repaired. There were no breaches along the newly constructed border wall areas."

I don't happen to agree with your position concerning the wall.

But your account is relatively new. I wish you well in figuring out how to more effectively navigate conversation here.

I'm curious with what aspect of the wall you disagree with.

What would you consider a more effective conversational policy? Conforming to the same political beliefs?

If you haven't read the guidelines and FAQ, those are good places to start.