We Asked Them to Choose Between Two Trump Policies… They REFUSED and Demanded EVERYTHING! The Overwhelming Response Proves Americans Are DONE with Half-Measures on Border Security!
THE QUESTION DESIGNED TO DIVIDE—THAT UNITED INSTEAD
“Border Solution: Build the Wall OR Mass Deportations?”
This question was carefully designed to force a difficult choice between two of Donald Trump’s most controversial immigration policies. On one side: building a physical wall along the southern border to prevent illegal crossings. On the other side: mass deportations to remove the millions of people already living in America illegally.
We expected this to generate real debate within the conservative base. Some people would argue the wall is more important because prevention is better than cure—stop the problem at the source rather than dealing with consequences later. Others would argue deportations matter more because we already have somewhere between ten and twenty million illegal immigrants living in America, and no wall will solve that existing problem. Maybe some would say we can only afford one approach and need to prioritize limited resources.
The question was designed as a genuine either/or choice, forcing people to reveal their true priority. If you could only have one policy, which would you choose?
What we got was something we’ve never seen before in any political question we’ve asked: near-total unanimity in rejecting the premise entirely.
Out of approximately eighty visible responses:
- BOTH: Approximately 75 responses (94%)
- Wall only: 0 responses (0%)
- Deportations only: 1 response (1%)
- Neither/Other: Approximately 4 responses (5%)
Ninety-four percent refused to choose between the options. They didn’t want the wall or deportations. They wanted the wall AND deportations. Not one or the other. Not a compromise where you get partial implementation of both. Full implementation of both policies with no half-measures.
This isn’t just consensus—it’s near-unanimity on a political question. In an era of extreme polarization where Americans can’t agree on basic facts, somehow ninety-four percent agreed on this immigration question. That tells us something profound about where the American people actually stand on border security.
THE “BOTH” AVALANCHE EXPLAINED
The word “both” appeared as a single-word response at least fifty times in the thread. People weren’t writing paragraphs explaining their reasoning. They weren’t hedging or qualifying their answers. They were stating what seemed to them to be an obvious fact: you do both.
Think about what that means. Fifty people looked at a question asking them to choose between two options and simply wrote “both” as if the answer was so self-evident it required no elaboration. It’s like asking someone whether they want to eat or breathe, and they respond “both” because obviously you need both to survive.
“BOTH” in all capital letters appeared approximately twenty more times, showing that this wasn’t just casual preference but emphatic demand. When people write in all caps, they’re shouting. They’re emphasizing. They’re making absolutely clear that this is non-negotiable.
Bob Yust set the tone with the very first response in the thread: “OR ??? DO BOTH” The three question marks express confusion at why this is even being posed as an either/or question. The implicit message is: Why would anyone think we should choose? Obviously you do both.
Dan Mentzell Jr. followed with “How about BOTH!” The phrasing “how about” is slightly sarcastic, as if gently correcting someone who asked a silly question. The exclamation point drives home the intensity of the response.
Jim Schutt, William Woods, Kenneth Fentress, Harry Duplechin, Bob Ellsworth, George King, John Vreeland, Michael Allday, Jim Lee, Timothy Diel, James Baker, and Jim Hope all simply wrote “Both” with a period or exclamation point. No elaboration needed. The answer is both. Period. End of discussion.
Multiple people phrased it as an imperative command rather than a suggestion. “Do both” appeared at least fifteen times in various forms. Dean Gurney: “Do both.” David Herron: “Do both.” Dan New: “And do both.” Walker Tackett: “Yes do both.” Billy Barron: “Let’s do both.”
These aren’t suggestions where someone is offering their opinion for consideration. These are commands. The American people are telling their elected representatives what they want, and what they want is comprehensive border security using every available tool.
THE LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR “BOTH”
Some responses went beyond just declaring “both” to actually explain why both policies are necessary and how they work together. These explanations reveal the clear thinking that led to such overwhelming consensus.
Mark Davis provided the clearest articulation: “Both, they work hand in hand and together makes us stronger.” This captures the essential logic perfectly. The wall and deportations aren’t competing strategies where you choose one or the other. They’re complementary strategies that work together to solve different aspects of the same problem.
The wall addresses the flow problem—it stops new illegal immigrants from crossing the border (or at least makes it significantly harder and more expensive). Deportations address the stock problem—they remove the existing population of illegal immigrants already in the country. You need both to actually solve illegal immigration instead of just managing it.
Think of it like dealing with a flooded basement. The wall is like fixing the crack in your foundation so water stops coming in. Deportations are like pumping out the water that’s already there. If you only fix the crack, you still have a flooded basement. If you only pump out the water while the crack keeps leaking, you’ll never get ahead of the problem. You need to both stop new water from entering AND remove the water that’s already there.
Gary Zaremba made the point even more explicitly: “BOTH!!! They’re not mutually exclusive!” He’s absolutely right. Building the wall doesn’t prevent you from doing deportations. Doing deportations doesn’t prevent you from building the wall. These policies don’t conflict with each other or compete for the same resources. You can and should do both simultaneously.
Ronald Hoyez captured this in brilliant simplicity: “It is not or but and!” The question itself is fundamentally wrong. This isn’t an either/or situation. It’s a both/and situation. Framing it as a choice between two options is a false premise that Americans immediately rejected.
Dan Thomas stated what should be obvious to anyone thinking clearly: “Both you have to do both.” There’s no logical argument for doing only one. If your goal is to solve illegal immigration rather than just tinker around the edges, you have to address both the flow of new illegal immigrants and the stock of existing illegal immigrants.
THE INTENSITY AND URGENCY IN THE RESPONSES
What’s striking about these responses isn’t just that people said “both”—it’s the intensity and urgency with which they demanded it. This wasn’t calm policy discussion. This was emphatic insistence that action needs to happen now.
Bob Murray wrote “Both ASAP” showing that people don’t just want both policies eventually or when it’s convenient. They want both policies implemented as soon as possible. The frustration is palpable. Americans have been waiting for decades for real border security. They’re done waiting.
John Charles Franz emphasized the same urgency with careful punctuation: “Yes . Both. Immediately.” Notice the period after “yes” and after “both”—he’s putting a hard stop after each word for emphasis. This isn’t a run-on sentence expressing a casual thought. Each word is its own declaration. Yes. Both. Immediately. Don’t delay. Don’t study it further. Don’t form another commission. Act now.
Claudie J. Cromer went full caps lock with triple exclamation points: “DO BOTH !!!” This is shouting in text form. This is someone who’s so frustrated with political inaction that they’re demanding immediate comprehensive action with maximum emphasis.
Mike Peterman wrote “BOTH PLZ !!” adding “please” as if remembering politeness at the last second, but the all caps and double exclamation points show this is more demand than polite request. The subtext is: “I’m asking nicely, but this is non-negotiable.”
Donald W Chaney took it even further with “whatever it takes.” This goes beyond just supporting the wall and deportations. This is saying: do both those things and anything else that’s necessary to secure the border. No limits. No restrictions. No half-measures. Whatever is required to actually solve the problem.
This intensity reflects years—decades really—of frustration with politicians who campaign on border security and then do nothing once elected. Americans have heard promises about immigration enforcement since the 1980s. They’ve watched the illegal immigrant population grow from three million to somewhere between ten and twenty million. They’ve seen politicians from both parties talk tough during campaigns and then find excuses for inaction once in office.
They’re done with the excuses. They’re done with the promises. They’re done with pilot programs and studies and committees. They want action, and they want it now.
THE “ALL OF THE ABOVE” EXPANSION
Some responses went beyond demanding both the wall and deportations to suggest that even those two policies aren’t enough. They want comprehensive border security that includes everything that could possibly work.
Richard Cranium and Jim Robbins both wrote “All of the above” as if this were a multiple choice test with more than two options. The implication is that there are many different border security measures we could implement, and the correct answer is: all of them.
Carl Tebbe phrased it explicitly as a test question: “‘C’ all of the above!” This is how you’d mark a multiple choice exam where options A and B are both correct, so you select option C which is “all of the above.” It’s a clever way of saying: don’t make us choose between good options—every option is correct, so implement everything.
Leroy SAare added a specific third proposal that wasn’t even mentioned in the original question: “Set up guard towers along the wall with armed guards.” So now we’re talking about the wall, plus mass deportations, plus military-style border defense with armed guards in towers. This is maximum deterrence. This is treating the border like the serious security challenge it is.
This “all of the above” mentality reflects a fundamental shift in how conservatives think about immigration. For decades, the debate was framed as: how much enforcement is appropriate? What’s the right balance between security and compassion? How do we enforce the law without being mean?
That framing assumes enforcement is the problem that needs to be balanced against other concerns. The “all of the above” responses reject that framing entirely. They start from the position that illegal immigration is the problem, and enforcement is the solution. Therefore, you don’t balance enforcement against other concerns—you maximize enforcement until the problem is solved.
This isn’t extremism. This is how every other country in the world approaches immigration. Japan doesn’t agonize about whether enforcing immigration law is mean. Neither does Canada, Australia, Israel, or any other developed nation. They have immigration laws, they enforce them, and nobody considers this controversial.
Only in America have we somehow created a political culture where enforcing immigration law is treated as potentially problematic rather than basic government function.
WHY BOTH POLICIES ARE NECESSARY—THE COMPLETE ARGUMENT
The ninety-four percent who said “both” understand something that political elites often miss: you cannot solve illegal immigration with half-measures or single-policy approaches. You need comprehensive enforcement that addresses every aspect of the problem.
Let’s break down exactly why each policy alone is insufficient and why both together are necessary.
If You Only Build the Wall:
A border wall (or barrier system, or whatever you want to call it) addresses one specific problem: illegal border crossings between ports of entry. It makes it physically harder to just walk across the border into America.
This is important because somewhere between 500,000 and 2 million people per year cross the southern border illegally (the numbers vary wildly depending on enforcement levels and who’s doing the counting). That’s a massive flow of illegal immigration that needs to be stopped.
But here’s what the wall alone doesn’t solve:
First, you still have somewhere between ten and twenty million people already living in America illegally. Building the wall doesn’t affect them at all. They’re already here. They’re working, using services, sending money back to their home countries, and in some cases committing additional crimes. If you build the wall but don’t remove the people already here, you’ve only solved the flow problem, not the stock problem.
Second, a significant percentage of illegal immigrants (estimates range from 40% to 60%) don’t cross the border illegally at all. They enter legally on tourist visas, student visas, or work visas, and then overstay when those visas expire. The wall does absolutely nothing to prevent visa overstays. You can build the most beautiful wall in history, and people will still fly into Los Angeles or New York on tourist visas and simply never leave.
Third, no wall is completely impenetrable. People will tunnel under it, cut through it, climb over it with ladders, or bribe corrupt border patrol agents to let them through official crossing points. A wall dramatically reduces illegal crossings, but it doesn’t reduce them to zero. You still need enforcement.
Fourth, the wall doesn’t address sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement. You could have a perfect wall that stops every single illegal border crossing, and you’d still have cities like San Francisco and New York refusing to turn over criminal illegal immigrants to federal authorities for deportation.
Fifth, the wall doesn’t eliminate the incentive for illegal immigration. As long as people believe they can make more money in America than in their home countries, and as long as they believe they can live here without consequences even if they’re caught, they’ll keep trying to come. The wall raises the cost of entry, but it doesn’t eliminate the benefit of successfully entering.
So the wall alone is necessary but not sufficient. It’s an important tool that should absolutely be built, but it doesn’t solve the complete problem.
If You Only Do Mass Deportations:
Deportations address a different part of the problem: removing people who are already here illegally. This is also crucial because you can’t claim to have a functioning immigration system if millions of people can break immigration law and face no consequences.
But here’s what deportations alone don’t solve:
First, you’re fighting a losing battle if you’re deporting people while the border remains open. Imagine you deport 100,000 illegal immigrants this month, but 150,000 new ones cross the border illegally. You’re going backwards. You’re bailing water from a boat that has a giant hole in it. You might work really hard at bailing, but you’ll never get ahead of the leak.
Even if you deport people at the same rate they’re arriving, you’re just maintaining the current population of illegal immigrants rather than reducing it. To actually solve the problem, you’d need to deport people faster than they’re arriving, which is almost impossible if the border is completely open.
Second, mass deportations are expensive and resource-intensive. You need to identify illegal immigrants, arrest them, hold them during immigration proceedings, and then physically transport them back to their home countries. The Obama administration deported about 400,000 people per year at peak enforcement. That cost billions of dollars. If you tried to deport ten million people without securing the border first, you’d spend hundreds of billions of dollars and still not solve the problem because new people would keep arriving.
Third, deportations face legal and political challenges that slow down the process. Immigration attorneys file appeals. Sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate. Media runs sympathetic stories about families being separated. Federal judges issue nationwide injunctions. Even when you’re clearly in the right legally, the process of actually deporting large numbers of people is slow and contentious. If the border remains open while you’re fighting these battles, you’re losing ground.
Fourth, deportations create diplomatic complications with the countries where people are being sent. Some countries refuse to accept their citizens back or slow-walk the process. This is especially true for countries that benefit from remittances—money sent back by their citizens working in America illegally. These countries have a financial incentive to make deportations difficult.
Fifth, deportation-only approaches don’t address the question: what happens after you deport someone? If the border is still open, what stops that same person from crossing illegally again next week? Studies show that a significant percentage of deported illegal immigrants do return to the US. Without border security, deportation becomes a revolving door.
So deportations alone are necessary but not sufficient. They’re an important tool that should absolutely be implemented, but they don’t solve the complete problem without border security.
Why Both Together Actually Work:
When you combine the wall with mass deportations, you address both the flow problem and the stock problem simultaneously.
The wall dramatically reduces the number of new illegal border crossings. Maybe it doesn’t reduce them to zero, but it might reduce them by 80% or 90%. Suddenly instead of 150,000 people crossing illegally per month, you have 15,000. That’s manageable.
Meanwhile, deportations reduce the existing population of illegal immigrants. You remove the people who are already here illegally, especially those who commit crimes or work in jobs that Americans could fill.
Together, these policies create a virtuous cycle. As the number of new arrivals drops and the existing population decreases, the entire illegal immigration system starts to collapse. Smuggling networks become less profitable. Employers become more cautious about hiring illegal workers. Families considering illegal immigration see that it’s much harder to enter and much more likely you’ll be deported if you do enter.
The combination also sends a clear message: America is serious about enforcing immigration law. Not just studying it. Not just talking about it. Actually enforcing it with physical barriers and consequences for violating the law.
This is why ninety-four percent of respondents said “both.” They understand that either policy alone is insufficient, but both together can actually solve the problem.
WHAT THE DATA SHOWS ABOUT WALLS AND DEPORTATIONS
Beyond the logic and common sense arguments, we have actual data about what works for border security.
Evidence That Walls Work:
Israel built a border barrier to stop illegal immigration from Africa and terrorist infiltration from Gaza and the West Bank. The results were dramatic. Illegal crossings from Egypt dropped from over 16,000 in 2011 to less than 20 in 2016—a 99% reduction. The barrier wasn’t the only factor (enforcement also increased), but it was the primary tool that made enforcement effective.
Hungary built a border fence in 2015 to stop the flood of illegal immigrants during Europe’s migration crisis. Before the fence, about 4,000 people per day were crossing illegally into Hungary. After the fence was completed, illegal crossings dropped to about 15 per day—a 99% reduction.
The border fence in Yuma, Arizona provides American data. Before the fence was built, Yuma sector was one of the busiest areas for illegal border crossings. After the fence was completed in 2006, illegal crossings in that sector dropped by over 90%. It didn’t eliminate illegal immigration completely, but it dramatically reduced it and made enforcement much more effective.
San Diego built border fencing in the 1990s. Illegal crossings in the San Diego sector dropped from over 500,000 per year before the fence to under 30,000 per year after—a 94% reduction.
The pattern is consistent across every location that builds border barriers: illegal crossings drop dramatically. Usually by 90% or more. Barriers work.
Critics argue that people just move to other locations to cross. This is partly true—there is some displacement effect. But even accounting for displacement, overall illegal crossings drop significantly when barriers are built. And the displacement pushes illegal crossers into more remote, difficult terrain where border patrol has better ability to catch them.
Evidence That Deportations Work:
The Eisenhower administration implemented Operation Wetback in 1954, which deported over 1 million illegal immigrants in a single year. The program was controversial and had significant problems, but it did reduce illegal immigration substantially. By demonstrating that immigration law would actually be enforced, it deterred many people from coming and convinced many already here to self-deport.
When Arizona implemented strict immigration enforcement under Sheriff Joe Arpaio, thousands of illegal immigrants left the state without being formally deported. The same thing happened when Alabama and other states passed strict immigration enforcement laws. The mere credible threat of deportation causes many illegal immigrants to leave voluntarily.
The Obama administration deported about 400,000 people per year during peak enforcement years. This was more deportations than any previous administration. While Obama was criticized by conservatives for not doing enough and by progressives for doing too much, the deportations did have a deterrent effect. Border apprehensions dropped to historic lows by 2011, partly because fewer people were attempting to cross when they knew deportation was a real possibility.
Under Trump, border crossings dropped dramatically in 2017-2019 despite the wall not being completed. Why? Because Trump made clear that immigration law would be enforced. Deportations increased. Asylum claims were scrutinized more carefully. Catch-and-release ended. The message was clear: if you come illegally, you will be deported. This deterred many people from attempting the journey.
When Biden took office and signaled that enforcement would be reduced, border crossings immediately skyrocketed. In 2021-2024, over 10 million illegal immigrants entered the country because they correctly understood that Biden wouldn’t enforce immigration law seriously. This proves that enforcement matters. When people believe they’ll be deported, fewer come. When they believe they won’t be deported, millions come.
Evidence That Both Together Work Even Better:
We don’t have perfect data on both policies implemented simultaneously because we’ve never actually done it. Trump built some wall but never implemented mass deportations at scale. Previous administrations did some deportations but never built the wall. No administration has done both fully.
But we can extrapolate from the evidence above. If walls reduce illegal crossings by 90%, and deportations reduce the existing population while deterring new arrivals, then both together should reduce illegal immigration by 95%+ and eventually solve the problem entirely.
The combination creates a reinforcing effect. The wall makes border patrol more effective because they can focus resources on areas without barriers. Deportations make the wall more effective because people who get through the wall are caught and removed, eliminating the benefit of successful entry. Together they create a system where illegal immigration becomes so difficult and risky that most people stop trying.
THE POLITICAL REALITY THAT EXPLAINS THE CONSENSUS
The ninety-four percent “both” response reveals something crucial about American immigration politics that mainstream media consistently gets wrong: Americans are not deeply divided on immigration enforcement. They’re actually quite united in wanting strong borders and immigration law enforcement.
Poll after poll shows this clearly:
A Harvard-Harris poll found 80% of Americans support building more border barriers. This includes 70% of Democrats, 85% of independents, and 95% of Republicans. That’s overwhelming bipartisan support.
A Pew Research poll found 73% of Americans say reducing illegal immigration should be a major priority. Again, this includes majorities of all parties, all age groups, all regions. It’s consensus.
A CBS News poll found 62% of Americans support deporting all illegal immigrants, not just those who commit crimes. This is majority support for the most aggressive enforcement approach possible.
A Harvard-Harris poll found 61% of voters say illegal immigrants should be deported immediately without lengthy legal proceedings. Majority support for expedited deportation.
Polling on sanctuary cities shows 75-80% of Americans oppose cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Even polling of Hispanic Americans—the group most likely to oppose strict enforcement—shows majority support for stronger border security and immigration enforcement.
The pattern is consistent: large majorities of Americans across all demographic groups support strong immigration enforcement. The “America is divided on immigration” narrative is a media construction that doesn’t match reality.
So why do politicians act like enforcing immigration law is controversial? Because the groups that oppose enforcement are politically powerful even though they’re small in number:
Business interests want cheap labor and oppose enforcement that would reduce the supply of low-wage workers. Large corporations, agricultural businesses, construction companies, and hospitality industries all benefit from illegal immigration and lobby against enforcement.
Democrat party leadership views illegal immigrants as potential future voters. After amnesty or citizenship, these voters would likely vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The party has a cynical electoral interest in maintaining and expanding the illegal immigrant population.
Immigration lawyers and advocacy groups profit from the chaos. Immigration attorneys make money handling cases. Advocacy groups fundraise by fighting enforcement. Contractors get government money to house illegal immigrants. There’s an entire immigration industrial complex that benefits financially from illegal immigration.
Media outlets are ideologically committed to the idea that immigration enforcement is racist. They’ll never admit that strong majorities of Americans—including minorities—support enforcement because it would undermine their narrative.
These groups don’t represent popular opinion, but they have outsized influence in Washington. That’s why immigration enforcement gets blocked even when politicians campaign on it.
Trump was different because he actually tried to deliver what voters wanted rather than what special interests wanted. He fought for the wall despite opposition from business groups that fund Republicans. He implemented deportations despite media attacks. He enforced immigration law despite resistance from his own party’s donor class.
That’s why his immigration policies were popular. Not because Trump converted people to a new position, but because he took positions that majority of Americans already held but politicians were afraid to act on.
THE FALSE FRAMING OF THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE
The reason this question got such a unified “both” response is that it inadvertently exposed how the immigration debate has been falsely framed for decades.
The mainstream framing goes like this: Immigration hawks want harsh enforcement. Immigration doves want compassionate approaches. The right answer is somewhere in the middle—some enforcement, but not too much.
This framing is designed to make strong enforcement seem extreme. If the debate is between “harsh” and “compassionate,” then obviously compassionate is better. Anyone advocating for strong enforcement gets labeled as harsh, cruel, mean-spirited, or even racist.
But the ninety-four percent who said “both” reject this framing entirely. They’re not choosing between harsh and compassionate. They’re choosing between enforcing the law or not enforcing the law. Between having a functioning immigration system or not having one. Between protecting American sovereignty or surrendering it.
When you frame it correctly, the choice is obvious. Of course you enforce immigration law. Of course you secure the border. Of course you deport people here illegally. This isn’t harsh or compassionate—it’s basic government function.
Every country in the world enforces immigration law. Canada will deport you if you overstay your visa. Mexico treats illegal immigration as a felony. Japan has virtually no illegal immigration because they enforce their laws strictly. Australia turns back boats of illegal immigrants before they reach shore. Israel built a wall and deports infiltrators.
None of these countries are considered cruel or racist for enforcing immigration law. It’s understood as basic sovereignty. Only in America have we created a bizarre political culture where enforcing immigration law is somehow controversial.
The ninety-four percent “both” response shows Americans are done with that false framing. They’re not going to accept the premise that enforcing immigration law is harsh. They’re not going to choose between enforcement tools. They want comprehensive enforcement using every available tool, and they want it now.
WHAT “BOTH” MEANS IN PRACTICAL TERMS
When people say they want both the wall and mass deportations, what does that actually look like in practice?
The Wall Component:
This means completing the border wall across all 2,000 miles of the southern border where physical barriers make sense. Not every mile needs a 30-foot concrete wall—some areas can have vehicle barriers or other types of fencing based on terrain and threat assessment. But every mile needs some physical barrier that makes illegal crossing significantly harder.
This includes:
- Completing the approximately 350 miles of new wall Trump built
- Replacing another 400 miles of outdated or damaged barriers
- Building new barriers in the remaining 1,250 miles that currently have no barriers or only vehicle barriers
- Adding technology like sensors, cameras, and drone surveillance
- Increasing border patrol staffing to actually monitor the barriers
- Building access roads so border patrol can quickly reach any breach
- Lighting and other infrastructure to enable 24/7 monitoring
Cost estimates range from 15 billion to 30 billion depending on specifications. That’s a lot of money, but it’s a one-time infrastructure investment that provides security for decades. For context, we’re spending over 150 billion per year on costs related to illegal immigration (welfare, education, healthcare, crime, etc.). Spending 20 billion once to dramatically reduce those ongoing costs is a bargain.
The Deportation Component:
This means systematically identifying and removing people living in America illegally, starting with priorities:
Priority 1: Criminal illegal immigrants. Anyone here illegally who has committed additional crimes beyond immigration violations should be immediately deported. This includes violent criminals, gang members, drug dealers, drunk drivers, thieves, and anyone else who’s committed crimes. No more sanctuary cities protecting criminal illegal immigrants from deportation.
Priority 2: Recent arrivals. People who entered illegally in the past year should be immediately deported. They haven’t put down roots. They haven’t been here long. There’s no hardship argument. They knowingly broke the law recently and should face immediate consequences.
Priority 3: People with deportation orders. There are over 1 million people in America who have already been through immigration court, received deportation orders, and simply ignored them. These are the easiest deportations because the legal process is already complete. Just enforce the existing orders.
Priority 4: Visa overstays. People who entered legally but overstayed their visas should be systematically identified and deported. This requires cooperation between immigration authorities and systems that track visa expirations.
Priority 5: Illegal workers. Employers who hire illegal immigrants should face serious penalties including fines and jail time. This requires E-Verify to become mandatory nationwide. When illegal immigrants can’t find work, many will self-deport.
Priority 6: Welfare recipients. Illegal immigrants receiving welfare benefits should be identified through data-matching and deported. This requires ending policies that prevent welfare agencies from cooperating with immigration enforcement.
Priority 7: Everyone else. After the priority categories are handled, you work through the remaining population systematically.
This would be phased over several years. Year one might focus on criminal illegal immigrants and recent arrivals—maybe 2 million deportations. Year two expands to visa overstays and deportation order violators—another 2 million. Year three tackles illegal workers—another 2 million. And so on until the problem is solved.
The goal isn’t to deport everyone in a single mass roundup. The goal is to create consistent, systematic enforcement that removes the existing illegal population while deterring new arrivals. When people see that immigration law is actually being enforced, many will self-deport rather than waiting to be caught.
Both Together:
Implementing both simultaneously means the wall reduces new arrivals by 90% while deportations reduce the existing population by 20-30% per year. Within 3-5 years, you’ve solved illegal immigration. The population of illegal immigrants drops from 15-20 million to maybe 2-3 million, and new arrivals drop from 2 million per year to maybe 100,000.
At that point you have a manageable problem rather than a crisis. You can focus on border security maintenance and removing the remaining illegal immigrants without being overwhelmed by constant new arrivals.
That’s what “both” means. Comprehensive enforcement that actually solves the problem instead of just managing it.
THE FINAL VERDICT
Border Solution: Build the Wall OR Mass Deportations?
According to comments: BOTH (94%)
According to logic: BOTH (neither alone solves the problem)
According to evidence: BOTH (data shows both work, together they work better)
According to public opinion: BOTH (polls show supermajority support)
The American people have spoken with near-unanimity. They’re done with false choices. They’re done with half-measures. They’re done with politicians who promise border security and deliver nothing.
They want the wall built. They want illegal immigrants deported. They want immigration law enforced. They want both policies implemented fully and immediately.
This isn’t extremism. This is common sense. This is what every other country does. This is what supermajorities of Americans support across all demographics.
The only question is whether politicians will finally listen to what the American people have been saying for decades, or whether they’ll continue serving special interests while pretending to care about border security.
The ninety-four percent who said “both” have made their position clear. Now it’s time for government to deliver.
Do YOU think we should build the wall, do mass deportations, or both? Why should Americans accept false choices when we can have comprehensive border security? The 94% who demanded BOTH understand that half-measures have failed for decades—it’s time for full enforcement that actually solves illegal immigration instead of just managing it.
