>>1150>And as you didn't provide any citation for your "thoroughly debunked" claim, I can only assume any article you provide will be of a similar quality.
I actually had a very long discussion on this in which I posted multiple sources, from acredited structural engineers, and proposals from the companies tasked with giving the best possible estimates.
But thank you, for that nice assumption.
there's plenty of sources in this threadhttps://ponyville.us/townhall/res/407.html
I won't go over it again, it was a pain in the first place and it's not worth it now.
You're the one missing the point, thinking you have all the answers to this problem. You propose a simple solution to a nationwide systemic problem, with a multitude of complicated factors and all you're willing to do is give articles "casual" glances.
"The solution is easy"
"Just casually reading through the article"
"I'm able to come up with potential workarounds"
It's not just that the wall won't work, it's that the wall is too expensive, won't work, will take too long, and would replace infrastructure that is already built and functioning. The US has a problem of too much security, not a problem of too little. And furthermore, of course the infrastructure should function efficiently, but focusing on one single feature of security, reducing complex social and systemic problems to single-faceted problems with simple solutions, this is to truly miss the point.