Yes, it is hypocritical.Believe but that secretly everyone was happy with the fence of Orban. I do believe in walls, both in Europe and in the US. You have to be able to determine yourself as a customs union who you want to let in and who does not. A wall is just a solid border guard.
In my opinion, you should only allow people who really make the country stronger and who also have the capacity to go into the European melting pot.It makes little sense to let people in, which you can expect to belong to an immigrant subclass, which will only cost money. A country is not a shelter for large numbers of problem cases.
No it is not hypocritical in the sense that the European Union is not behind the wall of Europe as well as the US. It would be hypocritical if Hungary were against it, for example.Does it demonstrate unity in Europe? Hell No!
Every wall is doomed to ever be demolished, or to serve as a tourist attraction.Greatly enlargements of media problems is a much higher wall to exceed. Whoever has seen the report yesterday about Facebook on one, knows that when you have a certain conviction, you are seldom critical and only looking for news that strengthens that conviction.
There are so many legal criminal immigrants in Europe and the US if there are illegal value-added immigrants.No wall that can prevent that.
Generally, and certainly in countries with a high macho culture or where women are religiously suppressed, one change will make all those walls redundant.Ensure that women can enjoy education everywhere, have public participation and enjoy the same rights. Only then can peace arise in the countries from which these immigrants come. And emancipation causes birth control so that overcrowding does not chase people over their borders. If they have no reason to leave, there must not be a wall and no one has to be hypocritical. But so, which man will want to admit that?
Because hypocrisy and demagogy are inherent in democratic politics.And of course because Trump himself is also 芒 鈧?虄controversieel芒 鈧劉. Or at least by a lot Of people are seen as controversial. But even if-ie is not, it is inherent in a parliamentary democracy, that politicians must be opportunistic and/or populist. After all, every four years, a politician has to ensure that-ie enters and electorate and then has to tempt the voter to vote (again) on him or her. So it is prudent that this voter does not vote for someone else, let alone on another party. In this way, both in politics and in the opinion-reporting, they are often played on the man. Completely in a de facto two-party system, as in the US. In addition, there is no group discipline IN The US and American party members of the same party are able to convey different viewpoints.
芒 鈧?虄Trumps Muur芒 鈧劉 is nothing but a fortified border with Mexico.The potgraceful is now that, despite the two-party system, there has been a relatively unified policy on this reinforcement for decades. Started under Bush Senior, continued and expanded under Bill Clinton, prefixed under Bush Junior and continued under Obama. Mr. Nancy Pelosi himself, as the Democratic President of the House of the deputy, has accepted all those continuation and expansions as regards strengthening the border with Mexico! Even when there was a Republican president. Hillary Clinton idem!? Most Democrats have always agreed and thus also written and implemented self-policy (under Bill Clinton and Obama) regarding the strengthening of the Mexican border, to make it harder for Mexicans to cross that border illegally. This same Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats now suddenly want to know nothing about a “Muur芒 鈧劉. It was they even worth the longest shutdown from American history.Wranger still: That shutdown has ultimately cost more than the 5.7 billion USD that Trump wanted to free for its so-called 芒 鈧?虄muur芒 鈧劉.
(Incidentally, it is in English Trump芒 鈧劉 s Wall and In Dutch trumps wall, without apostrophe.)
The wall as it is meant here is also controversial.In addition, the builder is also very controversial and much further on his way to becoming an autocrat than Trump.
Trump can’t care the American border. If illegal immigration was really a point, there would be better, and cheaper ways to combat it. As he smother, we know that argument is nonsense.
It is blatantly racist, aimed at people with a tan. Of course he has to know that, but you cannot expect the more smarter people to agree with it.
It’s controversial because T is racist, should solve a non-existent problem, that can’t, and again in a bizarre expensive way
It is hypocritical to pretend that there are no boundaries and as if there are no illegal immigrants coming across the border.
芒 鈧?艙Controversieel芒 鈧?How is it controversial to stop illegal immigrants, I honestly do not understand what is the problem here.
In addition to the answer given below, it also spells out that America is a country of immigrants, and a much larger proportion of Americans live the idea that America has a duty to give immigrants who want a new life a chance.
There is also the fact that the wall is ineffective, because more than half of the illegitimate immigrants enter the country legally, and then after exceeding the visa remains in America.Mexican drug cartels also have drugs on the parts of the border where a fence is already shot with a catapult, tunnels under the border dug, or with small submarine drugs delivered in remote harbours.
Finally, the wall, certainly in Texas, must be built on land in private possession, which the Government should be able to take to build the wall.As a sign of this, the majority of the voters in Texas who live along the border have Democratic (also because in many of these constituencies more than half of the voters are of Mexican descent)