CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The Practicality of "The Wall"
Since Trump became the Republican front runner, we have seen renewed talk of building (or continuing to build) a massive wall along our Southern border. Rather than talking about the possible foreign policy ramifications, any perceptions of racism, xenophobia or anything else, I think we are overdue for a legitimate debate on the practicality of this wall.
So, using actual figures (rather than opinion and supposition), argue whether you believe the border wall would be practical solution (or a solution at all) for the problem at hand.
The wall, coupled with armed guards and a mine field will send a potent message to all would be law breakers: Keep out, or we'll shoot your ass and then blow you up.
Considering the fact that approximately half of all illegal immigrants entered the United States legally and stayed past the expiration point of their visa, how do you believe the wall would serve as a deterrent for them?
If it doesn't, do you really believe spending tens of billions of dollars in order to stop less than half (in all likelyhood far less than that) of illegal immigrants is fiscally sound?
The wall is a start; at least it will address half the problem. The visa violators, that can be addressed by simply enforcing the laws on the books. As a matter of fact, all the illegal alien problem can be addressed by enforcing existing laws that have been on the books for years.
The wall is a start; at least it will address half the problem.
We don't know that it would address half the problem, we know that it would impede half the problem. Considering methods used such as subterranean tunnels, smuggling through check points, boats, etc, chances are damn near 100% that it wouldn't stop everyone. Which means it would stop less than half, at the cost of $25 trillion not including maintenance (which is estimated to reach cost within only 7 years) and the cost of manning it.
The visa violators, that can be addressed by simply enforcing the laws on the books.
And how is that, exactly?
As a matter of fact, all the illegal alien problem can be addressed by enforcing existing laws that have been on the books for years.
Attempts to do so would add trillions upon trillions more (you are talking about a national manhunt to find and deport a LARGE number of people).
So at what point does it become fiscally self-defeating? Or, if this has nothing to do with money and fiscal practicality, what is the purpose of this?
They get here, have a baby, then we are stuck with them.
The burden is doing incredible damage to our economy.
They need to deport, and implement our immigration laws.
And they need to stop making laws of allowance, and cities of amnesty.
The avg illegal allien costThe annual outlay that illegal aliens cost:
Cost to U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality.
The areas that they are moving into are already struggling local economies. They are not moving to Radnor PA, a wealthy community. They are moving to areas like Norristown boro, and major cities.
These are already areas that are broken financially, and the education is already a struggling. How can we fix anything, if we keep adding to it exponentially?
So the impact is creating more poverty! And its a hole that keeps getting deeper, especially with illegal alliens draining those local economies.
They get here, have a baby, then we are stuck with them.
The burden is doing incredible damage to our economy.
As I have already told you, the CBO estimates that the costs and the benefits equalize.
They need to deport, and implement our immigration laws.
And they need to stop making laws of allowance, and cities of amnesty.
That is an economically bad idea.
The avg illegal allien costThe annual outlay that illegal aliens cost:
Cost to U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality.
Since you are going to keep repeating this:https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf
So the impact is creating more poverty! And its a hole that keeps getting deeper, especially with illegal alliens draining those local economies.
Do you have any studies to cite regarding the socio-economic impact on locations where illegal immigrants move to, or are you just speculating?
Provide numbers please. 1/2 of 10 is 5. 1/ of 60 million is 30 million.
1/2 could be a huge number. 1/2 of a ficticious number or an inferred number is spin. Its ONLY half, well um, 1/2 of what exactly.
Then multiply it by years it has happened, plus the years you are willing to have more of it.
Then lets discuss that number.
And then, calculate the cost of economic impact. Unemployment, Government payouts and benefitss, and all the other costs that we incurr. And multiply that by years , past and future years of continuance.
And you sound as bad as Trump with throwing the number of cost since you are at tens-sss of billions.
He said 5 billion to 12 billion.
And it hasn't been calculated yet.
And then you have the risk of terrorism, and that cost in lives and damages. And the increase in crime, since criminals do not come legally, they come illegally!
And the weight of that is also huge.
Illegal immigration is a HUGE issue.
And one that absolutely should be a priority of our Government and of Our People!!
Illegal immigration cost us Billions every year!
Taxpayers (2013)
The full report is available in pdf format in the attached link
Here is a snippet from the report:
"Executive Summary
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.
Key Findings
Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury."
Provide numbers please. 1/2 of 10 is 5. 1/ of 60 million is 30 million.
1/2 could be a huge number. 1/2 of a ficticious number or an inferred number is spin. Its ONLY half, well um, 1/2 of what exactly.
Then multiply it by years it has happened, plus the years you are willing to have more of it.
Well, there's about 11 million illegal immigrants every year, with over half entering with legal visas. Let's be generous and just call it 50%, however, for simplicity. That's 5.5 million people still entering the United States (remember, that's the number that are ALREADY HERE, not the number that are coming here every year).
Then lets discuss that number.
And then, calculate the cost of economic impact. Unemployment, Government payouts and benefitss, and all the other costs that we incurr. And multiply that by years , past and future years of continuance.
Yes, but you also have to address the positive economic impact. The Department of Labor estimates between 55-70% of agricultural workers are undoccumented, and the Social Security Trust Fund estimates that the undoccumented contribute about 10% of the total SSI income. That's all on top of many state taxes (sales tax, local utilities, often property tax, etc) that they pay without full access to social welfare services. After all, the Congressional Budget Office has this to say: "“Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.”
So if you want to examine the numbers, you've already got arguments against you.
And you sound as bad as Trump with throwing the number of cost since you are at tens-sss of billions.
He said 5 billion to 12 billion.
And it hasn't been calculated yet.
First, I love how Trump convinced everyone the wall would be great by starting at 4 billion, then eventually bringing it up to 12 billion.
As for the REAL cost: 167,272,000 cubic yards of cast-in-place concrete at $93/cubic yard = $15,556,296,000
1,030,000 segments of 10’ pre-cast panels at $17/panel = $17,510,000
2,500,000 tons of steel rebar at $600/ton = $1,500,000,000
So that's 17 billion for materials ALONE. When you add labor costs for construct and manning, and then maintenance...well, I'm sure you see what I mean.
And then you have the risk of terrorism, and that cost in lives and damages. And the increase in crime, since criminals do not come legally, they come illegally!
And the weight of that is also huge.
Terrorism is a minor concern since few (if any) terrorists have been coming through the southern border, most likely because there are so many easier ways of getting here. As for crime, there are practical, effective means of countering the crime, considering the Cartel based crime is all related around the drug and gun exchange. I've previously mentioned to you ways that would actually help solve that problem.
Illegal immigration is a HUGE issue.
And one that absolutely should be a priority of our Government and of Our People!!
I agree, just in an ENTIRELY different direciton.
Illegal immigration cost us Billions every year!
Taxpayers (2013)
Yes, and they also benefit us by billions every year, something your link left out.
I recommend you look at the direct numbers from the CBO, rather than getting them from a biased think-tank that isn't even giving you all the relevant information.
"Overall, the federal government spent $3.72 trillion in fiscal 2010, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
That means the $11.9 billion the government spent on securing the entire U.S. border equaled 0.3 percent of federal spending and the $3.6 billion the federal government spent on securing the border between the ports of entry equaled about 0.1 percent.
Strayhorn found that undocumented immigrants paid $424.7 million more to the state in taxes and fees than the state spent on them in education (by far the biggest expense), health care, and incarceration.
That’s a net gain for Texas.
But on the local level, the report found a very different story:
Local governments and hospitals were nearly $1 billion in the hole.
Here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data
Perhaps the (above) comptroller’s most problematic decision was to exclude the expense of educating the U.S.A. born children of undocumented immigrants, on the grounds that these children are American citizens.
That’s a dodge, and a pretty significnt one.
And below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data
(this skews all the numbers, since they are born as citizen at a rate of 2 out of 3, legal and illegals, are born from illegal aliens - not just education, but all other benefits, from health care to free lunch etc...)
According to a 2009 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, there are nearly three times as many U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as undocumented children.
Incarceration rate of native-born men is higher than that of immigrants. But there are problems with these reports.
And again below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data
Few of them differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants; the former are often well-educated people who have been vetted by immigration officials and their prospective employers.
Lumping them in with illegal immigrants might sharply skew the statistics.
"Overall, the federal government spent $3.72 trillion in fiscal 2010, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
That means the $11.9 billion the government spent on securing the entire U.S. border equaled 0.3 percent of federal spending and the $3.6 billion the federal government spent on securing the border between the ports of entry equaled about 0.1 percent.
Strayhorn found that undocumented immigrants paid $424.7 million more to the state in taxes and fees than the state spent on them in education (by far the biggest expense), health care, and incarceration.
That’s a net gain for Texas.
But on the local level, the report found a very different story:
Local governments and hospitals were nearly $1 billion in the hole.
Here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data
Not really, that's just showing how bureaucratic budgeting works. The ultimate economic effect remains, despite the fact that some local economies are harmed. Those aren't mutually exclusive.
Perhaps the (above) comptroller’s most problematic decision was to exclude the expense of educating the U.S.A. born children of undocumented immigrants, on the grounds that these children are American citizens.
That’s a dodge, and a pretty significnt one.
What do you mean?
And below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data
(this skews all the numbers, since they are born as citizen at a rate of 2 out of 3, legal and illegals, are born from illegal aliens - not just education, but all other benefits, from health care to free lunch etc...)
According to a 2009 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, there are nearly three times as many U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as undocumented children.
Incarceration rate of native-born men is higher than that of immigrants. But there are problems with these reports.
And again below, here is another example of statistic data confusion, that skews actual data
Few of them differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants; the former are often well-educated people who have been vetted by immigration officials and their prospective employers.
Lumping them in with illegal immigrants might sharply skew the statistics.
Im not saying there isnt economic factors that show a contribution to economy. But they are also a huge expense.
You have been thus far unwilling to recognize any economic benefit. Now that you have, we need to determine whether or not they are a national net-benefit or net-cost.
And the local economy seems to have a negative impact.
Local economies suffer from many things that benefit the nation as a whole.
Closing and tightening border control, and figuring out the mess we have within so far should be the focus.
Why?
And it should be a major concentrated effort to stop the downpour, so we can dry out some.
Without knowing whether or not it is a net-cost, why?
We have huge internal issues and we need to fix our house.
We do have huge internal issues. This isn't even top 5.
Why stop it? Jeeze, for every reason. Even with contribution they are a drain. Do you understand the growth in aliens is already unmanageable.
Its a heavy burden particularly on the local economy. Deportation is expensive. And criminals come over that way with ease. And terrorist also see it as an access point.
Regardless of everything, the bottom line,I would think that most Americans don't want illegal aliens who are not Citizens to make up large portions of areas we live and work in. We host many foreigners with green cards and student and work visas. There is a reason we as a country have limits in numbers of passes to come in annually.
1 way is manageable, 1 way is not!
I'm not sure why anyone would think open borders and illegal immigration would be healthy for society in general. If you really think about it, you would at least be cautious. You have areas where large amts of illegals live, they have no allegiance, they are not citizens. They are not honoring the country and they see little value in honoring the prividge of citizenship if we don't value it.
Fix America by fixing the warped minds of Americans.
American children [in Texas, presumably] would be at risk. Did you not wander around as a child? I surveyed the forests within miles of my house when I was young.
But that begs the question: where would these minefields be placed? In Texas, along the border? It isn't as if America is at war; weapons of war cannot be used on a whim, especially within America itself. In Mexico? That would be an act of war.
Might as well vote to turn America into a military state.
Defense is a different issue than illegal aliens entering.
And even in Defense, there are humane and inhumane acts of war.
Since we are not barbaric, we don't blow up people unlesd it is unavoidable. We value all life as Americans, its our greatest strength, and its also our greatest weakness.
Our kindness and tolerance are exploited in massive ways. By more methods than we can point out.
From terrorists, to other countries, every special interest group, every entitlement, every illegal immigrant, the media, our own government, and everyone that wants to trample America and the people of America, to move up while Americans suffer!
The National Debt, the Annual Budget, The Annual Spending, it belongs to all of us.
We ALL need to begin to make sense of our priorities in spending, and cut wasteful and nonpriority spending. And also, evaluate cost vs value and pay fair market prices when spending our money.
Not overpaying significantly for bid contracts.
Require fiscal responsibility, and priority spending.
Defense is a different issue than illegal aliens entering.
And even in Defense, there are humane and inhumane acts of war.
Since we are not barbaric, we don't blow up people unlesd it is unavoidable. We value all life as Americans, its our greatest strength, and its also our greatest weakness.
That's really not true, as evidenced by our collateral damage rate in over seas operations. It's a nice sentiment, but we do not follow it.
From terrorists, to other countries, every special interest group, every entitlement, every illegal immigrant, the media, our own government, and everyone that wants to trample America and the people of America, to move up while Americans suffer!
The National Debt, the Annual Budget, The Annual Spending, it belongs to all of us.
We ALL need to begin to make sense of our priorities in spending, and cut wasteful and nonpriority spending. And also, evaluate cost vs value and pay fair market prices when spending our money.
Not overpaying significantly for bid contracts.
Require fiscal responsibility, and priority spending.
The wall is a priority
Fiscal responsibility and building the wall are mutually exclusive.
Defense is a different issue than illegal aliens entering.
And even in Defense, there are humane and inhumane acts of war.
Since we are not barbaric, we don't blow up people unless it is unavoidable. We value all life as Americans, its our greatest strength, and its also our greatest weakness.
That's really not true, as evidenced by our collateral damage rate in over seas operations. It's a nice sentiment, but we do not follow it.
Seriously, expand your thinking, and stop trying so hard at accepting and being a part of the bullcrap propaganda that is based on exploiting your emotions, with little reasonable application of common sense, and the decency of benefit of the doubt to your fellow Americans, especially our military and law enforcement!
That's a far fetched idea of our Military!!
SO, what you are saying is.... "Our Military, Our Veterans, on battle fields and through air strikes DO NOT carefully execute plans, with careful skill, to limit civilian casualties.
What you are saying is ... "That our men and women in uniform care that little about women and children civilians when executing millitary force and strategies."
Was there ever civilian casualties? Yes. It is part of war? Yes. Did our military not care at all to limit those casualties? Or, did they actually try to protect civilians?
If not, the military should be prosecuted for unthinkable crimes done to humanity!
Oh, and the terrorist, they MUST be the good guys, concerned about the faithful among them, their civilian citizens. Good (evil) regimes among them, and morally upstanding terrorists caring for the people among them. NO, they would NEVER ever decoy a building, fill it with civilians, and make the murder of innocent people a parade for dramatic effects, (while exploiting us emotionally, since we actually value human lives). Terrorists don't exploit the devastation and distort mediia like that, do they?
When we go to war, we go to protect our civilians. We in America sheild our civilians.
When evil regimes and terrorists go to war, they use their civilians as decoys and sheilds!
From terrorists, to other countries, every special interest group, every entitlement, every illegal immigrant, the media, our own government, and everyone that wants to trample America and the people of America, to move up while Americans suffer!
The National Debt, the Annual Budget, The Annual Spending, it belongs to all of us.
We ALL need to begin to make sense of our priorities in spending, and cut wasteful and nonpriority spending. And also, evaluate cost vs value and pay fair market prices when spending our money.
Not by overpaying significantly for bid contracts.
Require fiscal responsibility, and priority spending.
The wall is a priority!
Fiscal responsibility and building the wall are mutually exclusive.
That's Ridiculous! It's like saying...
"My house roof is leaking, and mold is growing throughout the interior walls of my home.
But, I'm going to spend my household budget to replace....
1 - My working central airconditioner unit, because I'd like a cooler more efficient one.
2 - And also, Im going to spend my available funds on new carpet for every room in my house, because I don't like my blue carpet, I want new expensive plush carpeting and in a neutral colors, the blue is awful! Don't you agree?.... instead, Don't I deserve to replace my carpets, isnt that the logical choice?...
3 - I also allocated the rest of my household budgeted funds to buy some fancy brand new furniture, Because, my screwed up priorities, as an irresponsible home owner, allow me to decide whatever I want to make a priority and poof its a priority!
So, therefore, its irrelevant to my financial household budget and priority spending, and its NOT reasonable for me to prioritize and worry about replacing my damaged leaking roof, when I obviously need new air, new carpets, and new furniture!
I can let the roof go probably another 10 years or so, right, um yeah probably not!
I believe my family can live with the damaged roof, the current damage and the guarentee of further home decay as the leak problem keeps growing mold, and destroying my walls and ceilings!
The increasing costs of further damages from my old roof along with its existing damages is not relevant to my financial household budget and spending."
But, in reality, its stupid to let the leaking roof leak, and It's financially ridiculous and irresponsible to carpet and furnish a house, if I let it continue to leak!
Priority spending here is The Roof!
Not a new central air unit to replace my working one and certainly NOT new carpeting and new furnishings, that will be ruined anyway if I dont FIX the G.. D... ROOF!
And its also NOT fiscally responsible for our government and our citizens to let that leak go without fixing it!!
For even 20 billion or even 30 billion and spend 113 billion annually to manage the leak rather than just repair it!!!!
So even if the wall is 30 billion, for 1 time to build, if it saves 113 billion per year. How long would it take to pay for itself?
Now, don't everyone think too hard, it might cost you your liberal opinions!
Seriously, expand your thinking, and stop trying so hard at accepting and being a part of the bullcrap propaganda that is based on exploiting your emotions, with little reasonable application of common sense, and the decency of benefit of the doubt to your fellow Americans, especially our military and law enforcement!
Okay, first off, you are behaving like a complete ass. My opinions on this are from the actual figures of our overseas operations, not from any propaganda, not from any emotions, not from anything except the military's own reported figures. Stop behaving like an asshole and insulting people you disagree with. I come from a military family, primarily Marines and Air force. I have PLENTY of deference for the men and women of our armed forces. My criticism lies squarely with the command structures that run cost benefit analyses on innocent collateral damage.
That's a far fetched idea of our Military!!
SO, what you are saying is.... "Our Military, Our Veterans, on battle fields and through air strikes DO NOT carefully execute plans, with careful skill, to limit civilian casualties.
I am saying that the command structure of our military does not refuse to blow up innocent life unless it is "unavoidable", because factually speaking they don't. They would be less effective as a military if they did.
Was there ever civilian casualties? Yes. It is part of war? Yes. Did our military not care at all to limit those casualties? Or, did they actually try to protect civilians?
Yes, they generally tried to limit it. There are, however, instances in which they didn't. They have, on plenty of instances, knowingly harmed the native populace whilst on operations. Be it Agent Orange, drone strikes or what have you.
If not, the military should be prosecuted for unthinkable crimes done to humanity!
In some cases yes, in some cases no.
Oh, and the terrorist, they MUST be the good guys, concerned about the faithful among them, their civilian citizens.
Who are you trying to talk to at this point? Of course the terrorists are bad guys. Why are you comparing us to them? Aren't we supposed to be better than them, to the point where any such comparison is just silly?
Good (evil) regimes among them, and morally upstanding terrorists caring for the people among them. NO, they would NEVER ever decoy a building, fill it with civilians, and make the murder of innocent people a parade for dramatic effects, (while exploiting us emotionally, since we actually value human lives). Terrorists don't exploit the devastation and distort mediia like that, do they?
Of course they do. That does nothing to justify crimes we have committed.
When we go to war, we go to protect our civilians. We in America sheild our civilians.
We haven't entered into a truly defensive war since WW2, and even that was more of a long-term future defense (preemptive defense?). Beyond that, our wars have been to expand and maintain our sphere of geopolitical influence.
When evil regimes and terrorists go to war, they use their civilians as decoys and sheilds!
From terrorists, to other countries, every special interest group, every entitlement, every illegal immigrant, the media, our own government, and everyone that wants to trample America and the people of America, to move up while Americans suffer!
So do you really live day after day assuming that the entire world hates America and wants us to suffer?
The National Debt, the Annual Budget, The Annual Spending, it belongs to all of us.
We ALL need to begin to make sense of our priorities in spending, and cut wasteful and nonpriority spending. And also, evaluate cost vs value and pay fair market prices when spending our money.
Not by overpaying significantly for bid contracts.
Require fiscal responsibility, and priority spending.
The wall is a priority!
If you want to cut wasteful spending then you need to stop advocating the wall, which is wasteful spending.
That's Ridiculous! It's like saying...
Your comparison has no logical connection. The wall is not a cost effective means of solving the problem, based on the figures I have already provided for you. It's like saying there's a leak in my roof, so I want to fix the leak instead of replacing the roof.
And its also NOT fiscally responsible for our government and our citizens to let that leak go without fixing it!!
For even 20 billion or even 30 billion and spend 113 billion annually to manage the leak rather than just repair it!!!!
You are repeating a lie. The initial cost, as I have already provided the figures for, is closer to 25 billion, not counting maintenance and cost of manning it. The 113 billion is not included the economic benefits of said illegal immigrants, and the CBO says they equalize. This means that we are spending 25 billion initially with billions more over time for zero economic benefit. It also wouldn't even solve the theoretically 113 billion as over half of those involved arrive legally.
So even if the wall is 30 billion, for 1 time to build, if it saves 113 billion per year. How long would it take to pay for itself?
It never would.
Now, don't everyone think too hard, it might cost you your liberal opinions!
I'm not a liberal. Now respond to what I actually stay, because when you try to attack these straw men it just looks ridiculous.
We actually can't. Our Constitution binds us to any international treaty we have signed, such as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in which we, along with several other superpowers, agreed to no longer use minefields. To ignore that would not only be stupid and a violation of international law, but it would be unconstitutional.
The illegal aliens entering this country are a burden on our society. They get "free" healthcare paid for by whom ? They get "free" food stamps paid for by whom ? So do tell me how Oblunder's vetting process is working and if it is where do they hold the illegal aliens while this vetting process takes place. Now Josh Disearnest has stated on the record there is a 2 year vetting process.
The wall has already decreased illegal immigration in the areas where it stands.
In some places as much as 70%.
Ergo....more wall of an enhanced Trumpian tweaking of it would certainly conmtinue to impede the criminal trespassing into my country by thousands of wetbacks.
Of course it would not stop these bastards totally. But it, along with severe legal penalties, including the amputation of feet for serial violators, is a good start.
I support all efforts to stop the illegal invasion of my country.
You have claimed that racism diminishes the practicality of the wall and yet you refuse to refute anything as being down to just mere racism.
At no point did I claim that racism diminishes the practicality of the wall, and the second part of that sentence simply does not make sense. I am more than willing to acknowledge that some things boil down to "mere racism". I am also willing to acknowledge that most of the time, that's not the case.
I don't think you're really interested in debating.
I have been debating, this whole time. You haven't. Keep your foibles to yourself.
Let me tell you something: you're dumb.
I redirect you to the sentence this was in response to.
At no point did I claim that racism diminishes the practicality of the wall,
Really?
Then how come you made this comment in response to SlapShot?
"Casual racism aside, do you have any citation for your 70% figure?"
How do you know that SlapShot was being racist?
I know, Slapshot ain't as groovy as he thinks he is, but that doesn't mean he's being racist.
I have been debating, this whole time. You haven't. Keep your foibles to yourself
Well, provide evidence that disproves the practicality of the wall. All that you have provided evidence for is that you can neither disprove nor prove the practicality of the wall. However, since we are debating you should be trying to prove that you can disprove it, not that you can neither prove nor disprove it.
I redirect you to the sentence this was in response to.
I called you dumb because I was a bit tired and fed up. I doubt you have taken it to heart.
Then how come you made this comment in response to SlapShot?
"Casual racism aside, do you have any citation for your 70% figure?"
How do you know that SlapShot was being racist?
I know, Slapshot ain't as groovy as he thinks he is, but that doesn't mean he's being racist.
First, saying that SlapShot is a racist has nothing to do with whether or not the wall is practical. You need to work on your logical deductions. Second, if you bothered reading the conversation, I called him a racist because he referred to illegal immigrants as Wetbacks, a racial slur.
Well, provide evidence that disproves the practicality of the wall. All that you have provided evidence for is that you can neither disprove nor prove the practicality of the wall. However, since we are debating you should be trying to prove that you can disprove it, not that you can neither prove nor disprove it.
Jesus you are moronic. I already provided all of the figures for the estimated cost of the wall, maintenance costs, annual costs and benefits of immigration, etc.
Just because you can't pay attention, doesn't mean everyone else isn't.
I called you dumb because I was a bit tired and fed up. I doubt you have taken it to heart.
You are tired, and you are unable to answer the debate, or to debate on this topic at all.
So seriously. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and find a new debate to behave like this on.
First, saying that SlapShot is a racist has nothing to do with whether or not the wall is practical. You need to work on your logical deductions.
You need a break.
Second, if you bothered reading the conversation, I called him a racist because he referred to illegal immigrants as Wetbacks, a racial slur.
Calling illegal immigrants a wetback is not a racial slur. It may be insulting and it may not necessarily be right to call them that, but it doesn't mean that you are insulting where they come from, nor does it imply that you were insulting their race, it just means that you are insulting illegal immigrants in general.
It's more a social slur, like calling somebody a redneck or low life, rather than a racial slur.
Jesus you are moronic. I already provided all of the figures for the estimated cost of the wall, maintenance costs, annual costs and benefits of immigration, etc.
Just because you can't pay attention, doesn't mean everyone else isn't.
Within this particular debate, I have not seen you post any statistics. You seem to expect me to read all of your previous forum posts in order to have a discussion with you. I don't have that responsibility. I know need to read the posts that you have posted within this debate.
You are tired, and you are unable to answer the debate, or to debate on this topic at all.
I'm tired of you acting like this. Do you agree with or disagree with the statistics that SlapShot has posted? Do you disagree or agree with them? What is your stance regarding them? How can I debate with you if I don't know your stance, do you have a specific stance, or do you just refute it without one?
How can I honestly know? You need to tell me, never mind whether or not you have told other people about it before, because I've yet to hear it.
I'm only going to address one thing, because it is indicactive of how you behave in every discussion I have with you.
Within this particular debate, I have not seen you post any statistics. You seem to expect me to read all of your previous forum posts in order to have a discussion with you. I don't have that responsibility. I know need to read the posts that you have posted within this debate.
Except that you jumped into a conversation between SlapShot and I, and within that conversation, I posted several statistics, and addressed multiple other issues you have brought up. So you jumped into a conversation, made accusations about that conversation, and then when called out, saying it's not your responsibility to be informed.
I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who blames their ignorance on others.
I'm only going to address one thing, because it is indicactive of how you behave in every discussion I have with you.
You're good at doing that, I've rarely ever had a conversation with you.
Except that you jumped into a conversation between SlapShot and I, and within that conversation, I posted several statistics, and addressed multiple other issues you have brought up. So you jumped into a conversation, made accusations about that conversation, and then when called out, saying it's not your responsibility to be informed.
Where the hell did you tell SlapShot your statistics?
Can't you at least quote it?
I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who blames their ignorance on others.
I have no desire to have a discussion with someone who blames their ignorance on others.
No, it isn't true that you don't desire to have discussions with people who deflect their ignorance on others.
I don't believe you are telling the truth at all. We both know this, so just get to the point and post some figures regarding the wall or whatever evidence.
If I dislike a race it is because I have good and objective reasons for doing so.
Racism is a dislike or intolerance that is groundless in nature.
Just so you know.
Now then................
As far as those wetbacks coming in from Mexico. I don't care what nationality or color they are. They could be blonde/blue Swedes and if they were flooding my country illegally like the Mex's then I would rail against them and post what I did.
Thus...your snipe about me exuding casual racism in my OP is wrong.
Apology accepted.
Oh...here's that stat on the efficacy of the border wall.
Racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
The definition of racism does not distinguish between "groundless" or not (though probably because it is implied). If you use racial slurs like "wetback", you'll be called a racist.
As far as those wetbacks coming in from Mexico. I don't care what nationality or color they are. They could be blonde/blue Swedes and if they were flooding my country illegally like the Mex's then I would rail against them and post what I did.
Thus...your snipe about me exuding casual racism in my OP is wrong.
Except I was the one excluding the casual racism included in your post, which was predicated upon your use of a racial slur, that's it.
Now, onto the real discussion. The first example your source holds up is the stretch located in San Diego, and touts the decreased numbers. The thing is, that didn't decrease the numbers coming into the country, that simply decreased the numbers that used that route (though it remains an active smuggling route to this day).
Now I'm guessing your argument would be to just extend it across the entire border. There are numerous problems with this: the nature of the border (particularly in Texas) precludes this sort of structure due to a lack of a publicly owned buffer zone, we are constitutionally bound to an international treaty preventing us from causing any obstruction on the Rio Grande, the nature of the land itself often makes such a structure impossible to build, etc.
The second example is Israel, which is a more interesting one. Notably because it is 30 miles long in Gaza, and the proposed final secondary wall will be 420 miles long in total. The border with Mexico is about 1,500 miles longer than that, and exists within the conditions stated above. I don't think anyone doubts that we could make a 420 mile long wall work, because that isn't that ridiculous of a length to lock down. But pointing to a 420 mile long wall as proof that one almost 5 times as long would work is incredibly iffy at best, and that's not even getting into the fiscal comparisons (or the fact that the Israeli wall was essentially an annexation).
Lastly, the national number of illegal immigrants who entered this country legally is approximately 50%. A wall on the southern border would have zero impact on them, and would lead the other 50% to pursue other methods of entry.
It's essentially like gun control: It doesn't fix the actual problem, it tends to cost a lot of money without having anything to show for it, and if people want to find a way around it, they will.
What will the wall do? It will stop the worst of the illegal immigrants. It will be the hardest hitting punch to the cartels that we can throw. Why? It will minimize the amount of drugs going over the border (and under if it has a solid foundation). Now there is that age old argument that people could just throw things over which is very true. However, I believe that this can be minimized by proper patrolling of the border. What the wall will also do is minimize the power of the coyotes: the infamous human smugglers. What they do is awful and must be put to an end. Because they mainly operate by hiking over the border, the wall will have a substantial impact on their ability to operate.
In all, the wall is only one part of a whole. We still need an e-verify system to prevent people from overstaying their visas.
What will the wall do? It will stop the worst of the illegal immigrants. It will be the hardest hitting punch to the cartels that we can throw. Why? It will minimize the amount of drugs going over the border (and under if it has a solid foundation).
In places where a wall already exists, they simply catapult it over. What's to stop them from doing that over this wall?
And if the purpose is to damage the cartels, wouldn't the more effective and practical solution be to legalize and regulate most (if not all) drugs and rob them of their income?
Now there is that age old argument that people could just throw things over which is very true. However, I believe that this can be minimized by proper patrolling of the border.
But considering how the wall is thousands of miles long, "proper" patrolling is impractically expensive.
What the wall will also do is minimize the power of the coyotes: the infamous human smugglers. What they do is awful and must be put to an end.
But as you can see in the Mediterranean, it won't end, it will simply change. Between that, and the fact that about half of all illegal immigrants come in legal and overstay past their visa's expiration, it would seem that the wall would be stopping less than half of all immigrants. Considering the cost (tens of trillions initially, and much more than that over time from maintenance and cost of manning), do you really think that is a cost effective choice?
In all, the wall is only one part of a whole. We still need an e-verify system to prevent people from overstaying their visas.
You are 100% correct that a knock out punch to the cartels is to steal all of their business. But why did you even propose it? That is not a solution that can be allowed in the United States. With logic like that, the solution to Islamic terrorism would be genocide of all Muslims. That is simply not American.
Proper monitoring of the border is possible. Expensive? Yeah! Worth it? It is worth every penny. It will keep us safer. Gangs in the United States would suffer. The wall would lessen the stress on anti-gang units to a degree, opening up some money for border enforcement. Also, it doesn't have to be strictly manned patrols. We utilized thermal cameras and aerial surveillance to cover ground that we can't cover by foot or car.
As for the Mediterranean, that is simply not applicable. Migrants flow across the sea into several countries. They have many islands to land on as well. There is no way to block their flow.
Lastly, you talk about the cost of the wall being in the trillions. I've yet to see an estimate that comes anywhere near the trillions as for the cost of the wall. I don't know where you get that number from.
You are 100% correct that a knock out punch to the cartels is to steal all of their business. But why did you even propose it? That is not a solution that can be allowed in the United States. With logic like that, the solution to Islamic terrorism would be genocide of all Muslims. That is simply not American.
That comparison really doesn't make sense. Drug use is something an individual chooses to do, harming only themselves. It is a question of individual negative liberty. Terrorism is a violent act perpetrated on someone else. There's simply no logical link there. In fact, legalizing drug use would put emphasis on individual liberty which is very American.
Proper monitoring of the border is possible. Expensive? Yeah! Worth it? It is worth every penny.
Worth it based on what? What do you believe is the annual cost of the lack of monitoring?
It will keep us safer. Gangs in the United States would suffer.
Barely, where as they would seriously suffer from drug legalization, and it would cost very little (if not turn a profit from taxation).
As for the Mediterranean, that is simply not applicable. Migrants flow across the sea into several countries. They have many islands to land on as well. There is no way to block their flow.
See the gulf of Mexico, as well as the current smuggling routes in South Western California.
Lastly, you talk about the cost of the wall being in the trillions. I've yet to see an estimate that comes anywhere near the trillions as for the cost of the wall. I don't know where you get that number from.
I don't believe that is accurate. Widespread drug use would damage our nation's moral fabric for years on end. It would be almost as damaging to our moral fabric as a genocide.
The annual cost of lack of monitoring? I don't believe there is a real number for that. I think it can be obtained if you were to combine the cost of gang violence, healthcare for drug overdoses, prison operating costs, etc...
Like I said before, drug legalization would have an everlasting effect on our nation for the worse.
There are other paths into America where you can go around the wall. This can be minimized with the coast guard. The wall is not a solution to everything and there are ways to get around it. The goal is to seal every hole.
I don't believe that is accurate. Widespread drug use would damage our nation's moral fabric for years on end.
Just because you legalize it doesn't mean you take a hands off approach. Divert the funds from the War on Drugs into improved education and addressing the situations that lead to drug use.
It would be almost as damaging to our moral fabric as a genocide.
Based on what?
The annual cost of lack of monitoring? I don't believe there is a real number for that. I think it can be obtained if you were to combine the cost of gang violence, healthcare for drug overdoses, prison operating costs, etc...
That requires the assumption that without monitoring, no smuggling would occur. Yet even in places that are heavily monitored and secure, you still get smugglers.
Like I said before, drug legalization would have an everlasting effect on our nation for the worse.
Again, assuming that nothing was done after legalization, which nobody is proposing.
There are other paths into America where you can go around the wall. This can be minimized with the coast guard. The wall is not a solution to everything and there are ways to get around it. The goal is to seal every hole.
But around half of all illegal immigrants got here legally. How would the wall address those?
If we were to legalize all drugs, it would go down as one of the most morally destitute actions our nation has ever taken. It would hurt our children and family structure for years on end. There is nothing to compare the action to genocide but I personally believe they are of equal moral depravity.
I'm also not saying there will be no smuggling. However, the cost of other programs would be reduced.
Lastly, as I've mentioned prior to this post, we need to have a e-verify system. This would effectively eliminate illegal immigration via legal methods such as visas.
Its possibly racial to focus on a border for the South and not consider the same for the Canadian border
Even Huffington post, that in my opinion is left biased, says:
"U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended about 3,300 people along the northern border in fiscal year 2014, compared with about 480,000 people on the southwest border and about 3,900 people on the coastal border.DHS created its first northern border strategy in 2012, which is focused on information-sharing with Canada and risk-based assessments for how to use resources.
The government operates unmanned aerial drones along the border and uses sensors to catch illegal activity, in addition to working with Canada to detect threats.
DHS created its first northern border strategy in 2012, which is focused on information-sharing with Canada and risk-based assessments for how to use resources.
The northern border is nearly 4,000 miles of often wide-open space that differs from the southern border as much as a jungle differs from an ice floe. It’s a region stretching from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans, touching 13 states (not including Alaska), 12 national parks and forests, four Indian reservations, 18 international bridges and four of the five Great Lakes. The border is demarcated by thousands of small monuments established and maintained by a binational commission."
Similarly, the enforcement picture at the U.S.-Canada juncture bears only a passing resemblance to the way the Border Patrol operates down south. Because the physical landscape at the northern divide is rugged in many places, about 1,000 agents patrol it – compared to nearly 10,000 at the southern border.
Many people see those numbers as evidence the northern border is poorly guarded – especially since it’s twice as long as the southern border, and that’s not including Alaska. But Giuliano said the opposite is true.
Near Canada, geography works to the Border Patrol’s advantage, he said. There are some locations where the wilderness is virtually impassable. Those limitations mean the Border Patrol is able to do more with less.
"All you have to do is look at the north Cascades ... to realize I just don’t need people standing shoulder-to-shoulder watching that border," Giuliano said.
Also the environmental impact would be catastrophic due to the mountainess, wilderness and especially the 4 out of 5 Great Lakes.
And the annual percipitation and snow fall combined with ice and thaw.
A wall crossing that area would create environmental changes that would likely create natural disasters across that terain.
Damaging communities by floods, from a wall blocking waterflow and absorption that occurs naturally in that area.
The Great Lakes could become vicious instead of beautiful!
And would also disrupt the natural flow of wildlife.
Possibly even pushing unwelcome predatory animals toward human populations into US towns and Canadian porovinces.
And we can see by the reports I have quoted an attached, it is not an applicable solution on the Canadiam Border.
The speaker is funny. But a few things to address.
The wall has 0 to do with racism.
The wall is not, like many believe, it is not to keep out Mexicans, it is to force immigrants to come legally! With Photo IDs, and background records, to know who is coming,wht, and where they are going.
This is a free country! But its OUR free country!
Im not supporting Trump for President by this post, but I am defending the wall, and the cost of it.
Trump is a builder by trade, a builder of huge intricate designs, and he has experience in budgeting that job. Unlike the government cartel that overpays to pad the pockets of contractors.
Atleast Trump, would approach it with competing bids, and do it with fiscal responsibility.
Not like Like spending $43 million of taxpayer funds to build a gas station in Afghanistan.
And the concern about re'doing gov buildings starting in Dubai for Carbon Emissions gets money thrown at it, but the benefit to us is very little!! And the Obamacare website was extreme iver payments too.
We have governmement overpaying significantly wasteful!
The best part about Trump, he doent have an incentive to throw money at building and tech contractors.
Regardless of some failures he has proven successful, when it comes to managing projects, he understands value vs bennefit, and spending to recieve value, and avoiding waste
The speaker is funny. But a few things to address.
The wall has 0 to do with racism.
Actually for some it has everything to do with racism. With others, very little.
The wall is not, like many believe, it is not to keep out Mexicans, it is to force immigrants to come legally! With Photo IDs, and background records, to know who is coming,wht, and where they are going.
It does little to nothing to enforce that. Over half of all immigrants are coming through on legal visas and then overstaying. All the wall will do is further increase those numbers, and lead to different (illegal) paths into this country whilst costing tens of trillions of dollars.
Im not supporting Trump for President by this post, but I am defending the wall, and the cost of it.
Trump is a builder by trade, a builder of huge intricate designs, and he has experience in budgeting that job. Unlike the government cartel that overpays to pad the pockets of contractors.
Trump has built EXTREMELY little. He has a habit of selling his brand rights which lets buildings put up his name as if he built it. He has also led MANY failed building projects. He isn't some master builder.
Atleast Trump, would approach it with competing bids, and do it with fiscal responsibility.
Not like Like spending $43 million of taxpayer funds to build a gas station in Afghanistan.
Conservative estimates has the wall costing about that much in under a decade. Oh wait, sorry, you said million. Estimates have it costing close to $43 TRILLION within a decade.
And the concern about re'doing gov buildings starting in Dubai for Carbon Emissions gets money thrown at it, but the benefit to us is very little!! And the Obamacare website was extreme iver payments too.
We have governmement overpaying significantly wasteful!
So stop calling for more wasteful spending.
The best part about Trump, he doent have an incentive to throw money at building and tech contractors.
Regardless of some failures he has proven successful, when it comes to managing projects, he understands value vs bennefit, and spending to recieve value, and avoiding waste
His track record as a private citizen says otherwise, so why would he suddenly change once in office?
Actually for some it has everything to do with racism. With others, very little.
You can't weigh the perception or popular beliefs of people accusing others of racism against the facts of impact in America caused by illegal immigration.
Even if there is racism, building the wall is managing something illegal, and we are justifiably being reasonable to close off the access points into our country, regardless of who is on the otther side trying to enter illegally!
"A memo to all, equally required, you will not be discriminated against, because you are ALL equally banned from entering our country illegally!
Black, white,Mexican, Italian, Irish Muslim, Male, Female, Young, Old... All of you regardless of race religion, Age, Sex, all of you Immigrants we tell you equally, Don't come hwre illegally! All of you are welcome to come the legal way, so, come here that way!
Its illegal, we have every judicial, logical, even humane reason to close it our borders
That being said, this is not an issue presenting anyone an opportunity to call Trump, or others in government, or border control, or your fellow Americans ..."Racists"
That is absolutely a false unsubstantiated accusation.
You can't say that because, we want to stop ullegal entrance of immigrants, forcing immigrants to come in legally, that we are racists that hate Mexicans.
It doesnt matter if some truely are racist, because there ARE some who are racist.
But building a wall can't be a symptom you identify as racism, because the issue isnt whether or not we hate or like Mexicans. Its actually whether or not we should allow the illegal immigration that is outbof control and COSTING billions!!
And also,
Did you mean billions ot trillions?
I havnt seen estimates in the trillions.I have seen estimates in the billions.
Actually for some it has everything to do with racism. With others, very little.
You can't weigh the perception or popular beliefs of people accusing others of racism against the facts of impact in America caused by illegal immigration.
Even if there is racism, building the wall is managing something illegal, and we are justifiably being reasonable to close off the access points into our country, regardless of who is on the otther side trying to enter illegally!
So you start by saying that it has zero to do with racism, then you acknowledge that for some people, it does have to do with racism. That's self contradicting.
"A memo to all, equally required, you will not be discriminated against, because you are ALL equally banned from entering our country illegally!
Black, white,Mexican, Italian, Irish Muslim, Male, Female, Young, Old... All of you regardless of race religion, Age, Sex, all of you Immigrants we tell you equally, Don't come hwre illegally! All of you are welcome to come the legal way, so, come here that way!
That only works if you make a norther wall as well. Nobody's proposing that, which makes it clear that it is directed towards Latin American immigration. That doesn't make it racist in nature, but it does make this statement of yours rather...illegitimate.
Its illegal, we have every judicial, logical, even humane reason to close it our borders
There are indeed plenty of legal reasons to do so, there are logical reasons both to do so and to not do so, and there are humane reasons to do so and to not do so. There are also economic reasons to do so, and economic reasons to not do so. Stop making this a black and white issue; it isn't.
That being said, this is not an issue presenting anyone an opportunity to call Trump, or others in government, or border control, or your fellow Americans ..."Racists"
It does when people such as SlapShot say we need the wall to keep "wetbacks" out. Those are the people for whom racism is a factor, and those are the people who deserved to have their racism called out. That's it.
You can't say that because, we want to stop ullegal entrance of immigrants, forcing immigrants to come in legally, that we are racists that hate Mexicans.
And I never have.
It doesnt matter if some truely are racist, because there ARE some who are racist.
Which was my entire original point that you, for reasons that aren't clear, disputed.
But building a wall can't be a symptom you identify as racism, because the issue isnt whether or not we hate or like Mexicans. Its actually whether or not we should allow the illegal immigration that is outbof control and COSTING billions!!
Again, I never claimed that "building a wall" is a "symptom". I said that for SOME people, racism is a relevant factor in their desire to build a wall. I even made it clear that it wasn't prevalent in the majority of supporters. You are arguing against something I never said.
And also,
Did you mean billions ot trillions?
I havnt seen estimates in the trillions.I have seen estimates in the billions.
actually you said this, i was resoponding back to you, my point was and still is, just because some people are racist against Mexicans, that doesn't make it wrong to prevent Mexicans from coming in illegally.
Its wrong to accuse everyone of racial motivations.
So even if " its all about racism for some, as you said, and others very little (to do with racism)" neither have a bearing on should we build or not build the wall
You- Actually for some it has everything to do with racism. With others, very little
my answer to you was this part-
You can't weigh the perception or popular beliefs of people accusing others of racism against the facts of impact in America caused by illegal immigration.
Even if there is racism, building the wall is managing something illegal, and we are justifiably being reasonable to close off the access points into our country, regardless of who is on the otther side trying to enter illegally!
"A memo to all, equally required, you will not be discriminated against, because you are ALL equally banned from entering our country illegally!
Black, white,Mexican, Italian, Irish Muslim, Male, Female, Young, Old... All of you regardless of race religion, Age, Sex, all of you Immigrants we tell you equally, Don't come hwre illegally! All of you are welcome to come the legal way, so, come here that way!
Except you have already established that the purpose of the wall isn't to address the largest part of the problem, but to address a part of the problem. You then continued to say that the intent was to block immigration of all races.
Now you are saying that you don't want a northern wall because it wouldn't address the largest part of the problem, meaning the only immigrants you are actually trying to block are Hispanic.
Now I'm definitely not calling you racist, I'm just addressing "A memo to all, equally required, you will not be discriminated against, because you are ALL equally banned from entering our country illegally!
Black, white,Mexican, Italian, Irish Muslim, Male, Female, Young, Old... All of you regardless of race religion, Age, Sex, all of you Immigrants we tell you equally, Don't come hwre illegally! All of you are welcome to come the legal way, so, come here that way!" from you.
I can understand what I am saying just fine. Considering your consistent refusal to respond to what I am actually saying, it would seem that you can't understand what I'm saying.
Can u provide numbers from each nation, how much illegal immigration from each in the US?
Then also detail their entrance points.
Also which Nationalities of immigrants are most likey to fall into the 1/2 you mentioned that stay beyond visas.
A Border on one entrance point, does not take away fom strategies needed by other access points.
We want all illegal immigration to stop.
Here we are addressing the wall for that entrance point.
A wall on the Northern Border is illogical.
So they use intelligence and drones and other methods.
Expired visas, if they are already here, a wall is ovviously not a strategy to apply. So they need to up technology and tracking visas.
Refugees are a huge terror threat. No to all! And the views of women as cattle and the treatment of female children is an unacceptable mentality, and we cant vet them to the degree needed to safely bring them in without a huge risk.
Unless they can reasonably illiminate the risk, then the answer is NO!
So now I addressed a few other entrance points.
And Im sure Im a "racist" because of the refugees, but public safety is mandatory.
I already gave you the CBO report on the national cost of illegal immigration. Anything beyond that is pointless for this actual conversation, especially considering you seem incapable of understanding that I never accused you of being racist, and have only responded to things that you mentioned.
That only works if you make a norther wall as well. Nobody's proposing that, which makes it clear that it is directed towards Latin American immigration. That doesn't make it racist in nature, but it does make this statement of yours rather...illegitimate.
There is much less illegal immigration coming from Canada, although it's also a concern. Especially, in regards to terrorism.
But, the Southern border has been a probem for decades!.
Its illegal, we have every judicial, logical, even humane reason to close our borders
There are indeed plenty of legal reasons to do so, there are logical reasons both to do so and to not do so, and there are humane reasons to do so and to not do so. There are also economic reasons to do so, and economic reasons to not do so. Stop making this a black and white issue; it isn't.
We have to stop it. Its not a question of what is humane, no one wants to see people hurting, but they are Mexicos issue, not ours. Many countries are similar. I'm for people helping people, charity is a good thing, but if they can't come here legally, they can't come, and their condition of life in Mexico is not a factor to let them cross the border.
That being said, this is not an issue presenting anyone an opportunity to call Trump, or others in government, or border control, or your fellow Americans ..."Racists"
It does when people such as SlapShot say we need the wall to keep "wetbacks" out. Those are the people for whom racism is a factor, and those are the people who deserved to have their racism called out. That's it.
I agree, people who are racist don't understand what American is.
We are 1 American Culture, a multi- cultural, a-racial societyl
There is much less illegal immigration coming from Canada, although it's also a concern. Especially, in regards to terrorism.
But, the Southern border has been a probem for decades!.
As you said, it is also a concern. So if you want to live up to your claim that this anti-immigration platform exists sans-race then you need push for the Northern wall. Otherwise that claim, which you made last post, is rather illegitimate.
We have to stop it. Its not a question of what is humane, no one wants to see people hurting, but they are Mexicos issue, not ours.
We don't have to stop it. As for if it is a question of what is humane, you are the one who mentioned humane reasons to stop it, I just addressed you bringing it up. Additionally, they are human issues, regardless of nationality. This "we've got ours, f--k you" mentality is dangerous on an international level.
That being said, this is not an issue presenting anyone an opportunity to call Trump, or others in government, or border control, or your fellow Americans ..."Racists"
It does when people such as SlapShot say we need the wall to keep "wetbacks" out. Those are the people for whom racism is a factor, and those are the people who deserved to have their racism called out. That's it.
I agree, people who are racist don't understand what American is.
We are 1 American Culture, a multi- cultural, a-racial societyl
So why the hell are you disputing me based on things I didn't say if you agree with what I actually said?
You dont make ecinomic decisions based on appearing or not appearing racist
That is one of societies biggest problems internally
Its ridiculous!
And you stated earlier "not everything is a black and white issue!"
This ridiculous thought pattern is just that.
We are creating racism, by allowing it to make decissions for us, and everyone is basing their opinion on it.
You ARE imprisoned by politically correct mentality.
Your mind like others is trained to this racially infused ideology, that is taking away everyones freedom to say, think, do, and be free to have reasonable common sense without making the racial score card even.
Yet again, your response has nothing to do with the comment you are responding to. I never said we should make economic decisions based on appearing racist.
And to say that fear of appearing racist is a bigger problem than our crippling debt, our horrid social mobility, our obesity epidemic and dozens of other things is pointlessly hyperbolic.
Fear of appearing racist is an INCREDIBLY small issue compared to the actual, legitimate issues this country faces.
Now. Can you please start responding to what I actually say?
No. This is the last chance I'm giving you to respond to what I actually say, or I'm just going to ignore you. I specifically stated that it had to do with your previous claim, not racism.
Actually, this politically correct racially motivated view thats being accepted, particuarly in under 30 age groups, and the band wagon if older Americans that are jumping on board, though idealism or intimidation is adding to every problem. Socially to economically.
Including spending and deficiet.
Even our conversation proves that.
If we spend billions here on this then its only right we spend billions there.
The entitlements, the education, the amt paid supporting and even paying tax refunds to illegals, is a huge attack on our economy, and governments finacial stability. Federal and State. And our local economies.
Then you have the racial issue within.
Its costing us, in money and values.
And its also costing us freedom. Even freedom of thought.
Its sad, and tragic. But it is eroding society, and its very damaging.
It is just as damaging as the issues you mentioned.
Because its a main contributing factor in a social breakdown, dividing our country and its keeping people in poverty.
I don't care how much we "even" society.
No matter how much money you throw at it, its a waste till people decide to bring themselves up.
And work on their situation with positive solutions, uniting, not dividing.
"As you said, it is also a concern. So if you want to live up to your claim that this anti-immigration platform exists sans-race then you need push for the Northern wall. Otherwise that claim, which you made last post, is rather illegitimate."
Because you claimed your immigration stance had nothing to do with race, was intended to fix a part of a problem even if it didn't address the majority of it, and was intended in large part to stop terrorists. You then said that terrorists coming accross the northern border was a concern.
So not only have you demonstrated that your platform actually focuses on hispanic immigration (again, not calling you racist) but you have inconsistent justifications for this piecemeal approach.
None of what you said right here, makes sense to me.
Bottom Line
I do believe absolutely that the wall on the Southern Border would handle the largest entrance point of illegal immigration.
Terrorism is a separate issue. I am not talking about the wall for anything but that area. Because its the only place that a wall is applicable
Of course the entrance from there is predominately Mexican. Its Mexico! But I attached an article that says, they are coming that way through the Southern Border. It must be well known
None of what you said right here, makes sense to me.
Bottom Line
I do believe absolutely that the wall on the Southern Border would handle the largest entrance point of illegal immigration.
It would handle the point, but not hte actual immigration.
Terrorism is a separate issue. I am not talking about the wall for anything but that area. Because its the only place that a wall is applicable
Of course the entrance from there is predominately Mexican. Its Mexico! But I attached an article that says, they are coming that way through the Southern Border. It must be well known
I don't care what Nationality is coming in
I'm done. You are repeating the exact same thing over and over and not addressing any of my points. I'm going to just end this thread right here and now.
Your diet of liberal media and opinions prevent you from seeing a complete picture. I do try my best to stick with media you would accept, since anything consevative doesnt counterbalance your media diet.
Example: You hailed Obama as the deportation king or cheif, actually he deported less than Bush Jr on avg per year!
So info you had is FALSE
Like I said before, statistics tell whatever story you want them to.
During the Obama adm. they added the count of caught at border returns to the deportatation amt. And skewed the numbers.
"Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.
On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency's deportation statistics."
Your diet of liberal media and opinions prevent you from seeing a complete picture.
You don't know what media I follow, so don't be an ass.
I do try my best to stick with media you would accept, since anything consevative doesnt counterbalance your media diet.
Except, again, you don't know what media I follow. I intentionally balance conservative and liberal sources. So, again, don't be an ass.
Example: You hailed Obama as the deportation king or cheif, actually he deported less than Bush Jr on avg per year!
That's just ridiculous. Measure total number of deportations, not something as arbitrary as deporations by year. Obama has deported more than all the presidents of the last century.
Like I said before, statistics tell whatever story you want them to.
They really don't. That's something people say when they don't feel like investigating statistics.
During the Obama adm. they added the count of caught at border returns to the deportatation amt. And skewed the numbers.
Actually, as per your source, it was under the Bush administration when that change was implemented.
"Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records."
Now mind you I'm not trying to say you guys should be loving Obama when it comes to immigration. But the "sudden outrage" that has occurred under his administration regarding immigration is simply transparent, due to its noticeable absence under his predecessor.
Factually speaking, you really don't. Again, don't be an ass.
You mentioned in a few posts, discrediting info because from a conservative paper. And ones I know to be liberal like politifact you reference.
First, I never discredited something simply for being a Conservative paper. Second, I brought up politicalfact because of the dozens of citations to dozens of a-political organizations, not for the content within the article itself (and any supposed liberal slant).
Corrext they changed rhe way it was counted and see how the difference in statisics
First, it was Bush who did it, not Obama. Second, without the change, the rates are pretty much the same as previous administrations, which still works against this right-wing mantra that Obama is ridiculously soft on immigration.
So instead of media being responsible, making a case, they hail Obama as the deporter in cheif, just like you mentioned in one of your arguments
"The Media" makes almost no mention of immigration at all because it doesn't get viewers.
The Southern Border wall is proposed to stop a large # of people who are entering the US illegally through that 1900 ml entrance point.
And there are many types of people coming through the Southern Border, all of which are entering illegally.
I hope whoever is in office next will plug this leak or at the very least reduce it from the current illegal aliens entering through the Southern Border every year.
Not only does this location provide entrance by the average illegal migrant, but it also is an open invitation to criminals, drug smuglers, and also terrorists (the Southern Border is seen as an easy point of entry)
1,825 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border where the Border Patrol cannot prevent or stop an illegal entry. What’s the deal with this border fence?"
Fence explained:
"First off, it’s not really a fence. Not like you’re thinking.
The word “fence” conjures up an image of a single, continuous barrier, like the one that keeps your dog from biting the postman.
But the border fence is actually a series of different types of
barriers (“post-on-rail steel set in concrete with a mesh option”; “vehicle bollards”; “concrete jersey walls with steel mesh”; and
I never said the Southern Border wall "and was intended in large part to stop terrorists."
So I'm not sure why you think I said it.
You on Trump's proposed wall: "And then you have the risk of terrorism, and that cost in lives and damages. And the increase in crime, since criminals do not come legally, they come illegally!"
That's a direct quote.
And you say Im repeating myself, yet you say "I have inconsistent justifications for this piecemeal approach."
Those aren't mutually exclusive.
And its not piecemeal, there are different facets that require a different approach.
Again, those aren't mutually exclusive.
But stopping more from entering, is 1/2 the battle.
You are really providing a link to a conspiracy website that regularly posts articles about the New World Order and FEMA camps? Complete lack of any and all credibility aside, your link goes to this article "THE ‘JERSEY GIRLS’ SUPPORT ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH". An article about some small-time New Jersey group supporting 9/11 Trutherism doesn't support your case.
The Southern Border wall is proposed to stop a large # of people who are entering the US illegally through that 1900 ml entrance point.
And there are many types of people coming through the Southern Border, all of which are entering illegally.
Christ I am sick of this repetition. I am well aware of its intent, but the purpose of this website is to debate whether or not that particular goal is effectively and efficiently met using the method mentioned.
I hope whoever is in office next will plug this leak or at the very least reduce it from the current illegal aliens entering through the Southern Border every year.
And what cost is that worth? What is the price tag that would finally push it over the edge of practicality? Or do you not care about the cost at all?
Not only does this location provide entrance by the average illegal migrant, but it also is an open invitation to criminals, drug smuglers, and also terrorists (the Southern Border is seen as an easy point of entry)
First, the evidence of terrorists crossing the border is minimal (if not non existent). Second, the crime and smuggling can be addressed in different and more efficient ways.
As for the end of your post, I don't understand the point of it. I'm well aware that the fences that currently exist are, for the most part, shoddy and ineffective. Though it does make me question the efficacy of Trump's proposal, considering how the people who put up those fences made plenty of lofty claims as well.
It does little to nothing to enforce that. Over half of all immigrants are coming through on legal visas and then overstaying. All the wall will do is further increase those numbers, and lead to different (illegal) paths into this country whilst costing tens of trillions of dollars.
1/2 are here with expired visas, but still 48,000 come illegally through the Southern Border. If they close it up, thats correct they will have to find another way if the are determined.
Right now the perception all through South America, they believe if they can make it in, we are suckers, and Obama wjll let them in.
Obama has sent a great message, of ease to them.
Most if had to find another way they wouldnt.
The Southern border is easy to them, if it were hard, 48,000 per year wouldnt be able to do it.
So even though the trip is dangerous, the ease is still there, and its worth the danger of their trip.
And people who came legally once, would likely come legally again. Most likely they have more money to work with, since they had time here.
1/2 are here with expired visas, but still 48,000 come illegally through the Southern Border. If they close it up, thats correct they will have to find another way if the are determined.
Right now the perception all through South America, they believe if they can make it in, we are suckers, and Obama wjll let them in.
Obama has sent a great message, of ease to them.
Most if had to find another way they wouldnt.
How has he done that? By spreading propaganda run by the state through South American countries, through popular music and film, that the way is deadly? Or by deporting a record number of illegal immigrants? Or by targeting people who knowingly employee illegal immigrants, decreasing the appeal for future immigrants? And what evidence do you have that these people, who are risking their lives for something better, would suddenly stop coming?
The Southern border is easy to them, if it were hard, 48,000 per year wouldnt be able to do it.
Right, it's not like we are in the midst of watching tens of thousands of people die every year whilst immigrating to other nations....
Oh wait, we are.
So even though the trip is dangerous, the ease is still there, and its worth the danger of their trip.
The wall wouldn't change that, considering the quality of their lives.
You - Conservative estimates has the wall costing about that much in under a decade. Oh wait, sorry, you said million. Estimates have it costing close to $43 TRILLION within a decade.
Me - I still havnt seen TRILLION as an estimate anywhere.
And I never said millions, I said billions.
You. - So stop calling for more wasteful spending.
Me - How is spending 1ce - 25 to 43 BILLION "wasteful spending?"
if illigal immigration, mostly from the Southern Border, 113 BILLION per year? Spend 1 time to build - 25 - 43 BILLION vs the 113 BILLION EVERY YEAR?
You - Conservative estimates has the wall costing about that much in under a decade. Oh wait, sorry, you said million. Estimates have it costing close to $43 TRILLION within a decade.
Me - I still havnt seen TRILLION as an estimate anywhere.
And I never said millions, I said billions.
You. - So stop calling for more wasteful spending.
Me - How is spending 1ce - 25 to 43 BILLION "wasteful spending?"
if illigal immigration, mostly from the Southern Border, 113 BILLION per year? Spend 1 time to build - 25 - 43 BILLION vs the 113 BILLION EVERY YEAR?
Because your numbers aren't correct. That 113 Billion is for the total cost of all illegal immigrants in this country, and the wall would not be a one time cost due to maintenance and costs of manning. On top of that, it would stop less than half of FUTURE costs of illegal immigration due to the fact that it would be addressing less than half of incoming illegal immigrants.
So the entire point is to try to estimate what the total cost of the wall is compared to the total amount of money saved (remember illegal immigration has both a cost AND a benefit, so when you keep repeating the 113 billion without addressing the economic benefit, you are essentially lying) and determining if it is a practical solution.
I'm not saying it won't work. I'm not even saying it isn't needed or justified. But what I DO want to point out is eventually, for whatever reason, it will indeed come down just like the Berlin wall did. And do we really want to be THAT nation - the one that put up a wall which a half century later gets demolished and lambasted for ever having existed? Walls are built out of fear. Are we a scared nation? Are we more scared than the Mexicans who indeed did not build their own wall in case any of us want to go in there? And in fact, is the risk of influx from Mexico even as great as the risk of terrorists for example coming in through the enormous US/Canada border for which no wall is proposed?
It is pointless to debate this only with numbers, that misses the main point of the problem. That being said, people always find ways around things. There is no way to predict how many it would stop.
It is pointless to debate this only with numbers, that misses the main point of the problem.
How so? This is a proposed policy based on a proposed economic cost. We can determine an estimated cost of the wall, and an estimated cost of illegal immigration, then determine if the wall is a practical solution.
Ive never even heard a concern about the Northern border.
Canadians arent interested in sneaking into our country
Mexicans are!
Terrorism is the concern of the Northern border, not massive illegal immigragion.
These are 2 separate issues.
1 is a low level approach like make a break for it, closer to a kid skipping school. The brain power is that level, then you have drug cartel, higher level, more coordinated. Both detremental to American society.
You have a concern of terrorism, northern border.
You use homeland security, gather intelligence
And train out border control and you work with theirs.
Both are problems, with different issues, and different answers.
But to say putting a wall there to stop the MASSIVE entrance of emmigrants from entering illegally, is racial, if we dont address the different problems and issues is a politically correct confinement of reasoning skills.
And its the biggest culteral disaster facing us today within our country!
The northern border is nearly 4,000 miles of often wide-open space that differs from the southern border as much as a jungle differs from an ice floe. It’s a region stretching from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans, touching 13 states (not including Alaska), 12 national parks and forests, four Indian reservations, 18 international bridges and four of the five Great Lakes. The border is demarcated by thousands of small monuments established and maintained by a binational commission.
Similarly, the enforcement picture at the U.S.-Canada juncture bears only a passing resemblance to the way the Border Patrol operates down south. Because the physical landscape at the northern divide is rugged in many places, about 1,000 agents patrol it – compared to nearly 10,000 at the southern border.
Many people see those numbers as evidence the northern border is poorly guarded – especially since it’s twice as long as the southern border, and that’s not including Alaska. But Giuliano said the opposite is true.
Near Canada, geography works to the Border Patrol’s advantage, he said. There are some locations where the wilderness is virtually impassable. Those limitations mean the Border Patrol is able to do more with less.
"All you have to do is look at the north Cascades ... to realize I just don’t need people standing shoulder-to-shoulder watching that border," Giuliano said.
Since even Trump admitted that Mexicans could just use ladders to get to the top and a rope to come down on the American side, it is ridiculous to build this wall.
Yes its worth it, it will cut down illegal alliens significantly.
It should have been done a long time ago. Now it needs to be done!.
It is a huge issue, and it needs to stop. It will stop more than a few.
It would make a significant impact against illegal entering into the USA.
And it's one thing to debate, its another thing to be contrary,
The purpose of debate isn't to argue for the sake of being contrary, or just arguing for arguments sake.
Debates are to become more studied about your points of view, and to disect your views to strengthen, or add balance, or adjust, or change your view.
Being open to that. To be challenged. And to possibly understand anothers point of view. Maybe even adjust your own point of view.
If your negative and contrary, and everything is an argument, no matter how little or insignificant the point is like what I have seen with the above poster, and the reaction he/she gets regarding his arguments. The posts Ive seen so far from him, he appears to just mostly be someone looking for a fight. Not looking to have a debate.
Yes its worth it, it will cut down illegal alliens significantly.
It should have been done a long time ago. Now it needs to be done!.
"Significantly" is about under 25%, and that's an incredibly liberal estimate. For tens of trillions of dollars, that is simply impractical.
It would make a significant impact against illegal entering into the USA.
And it's one thing to debate, its another thing to be contrary,
The purpose of debate isn't to argue for the sake of being contrary, or just arguing for arguments sake.
Debates are to become more studied about your points of view, and to disect your views to strengthen, or add balance, or adjust, or change your view.
Being open to that. To be challenged. And to possibly understand anothers point of view. Maybe even adjust your own point of view.
Aside from how shockingly condescending that is, everything I've done here qualifies as debating. If I am "contrary", that's because I do not agree with you.
If your negative and contrary, and everything is an argument, no matter how little or insignificant the point is like what I have seen with the above poster, and the reaction he/she gets regarding his arguments. The posts Ive seen so far from him, he appears to just mostly be someone looking for a fight. Not looking to have a debate.
Why are you trying to talk to me about a different poster?
Do you think illegal alliens should ne allowed to come in, and we should not stop them?
My opinion on it is conflicted, personally. On one hand our economy largely relies on them for keeping produce prices down and for low-paying service positions. On the other hand, the existence of a criminal element alongside legitimate immigrants is undeniable. Personally, I'd rather start with the criminal element, which is the most damaging aspect, then move on from there.
How, by what method would you like to stop illegals from entering?
At first, by making it less appealing to come here. For the criminal element, that would be drug legalization. If one is determined to stop migrant workers as well, it would be increasing visa checks for employers, particularly in (but not limited to) border states, and possibly increasing penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Not necessarily something I want, but it would be substantially cheaper than building a wall and it would ultimately have close to the same deterring effect.
Bonus? That isn't a bonus. That's the job of the wall. You really want to build a wall that won't actually keep the illegals out? How much are you willing to spend to only slow them down?
Even if some still get in, it will significantly reduce the amt of people coming in illegally that has been and is currently coming in to our country through that way.
And that is worth every penny, where lots of other Government spending needs to be altered significantly!
It comes down to cost vs value, and we as a government and a people need to make some priority choices in spending.
How is it worth every penny if it costs tens of trillions more than it saves (according to the CBO)?
After all, the entire point of this debate is to incite a cost benefit analysis of the wall, and the CBO's figures have the economic impact of immigration neutral, if not positive overall, while the wall would cost tens of trillions (and more trillions in time with maintenance). A cost benefit analysis, based purely on the fiscal practicality of it, demonstrates that this wall is not a practical solution to illegal immigration.
Even if some still get in, it will significantly reduce the amt of people coming in illegally that has been and is currently coming in to our country through that way.
Fences have been working really well and cost much much less.
And that is worth every penny, where lots of other Government spending needs to be altered significantly!
How would you know it is worth every penny if you won't put a price tag on it?
It comes down to cost vs value, and we as a government and a people need to make some priority choices in spending.
You won't discuss the cost.
And this one IS a priority.
It will not keep out or slow down the people that we should prioritize keeping out.
You have already admitted that we won't be preventing all immigration costs. We won't save 113 billion by putting up a wall. Is 30 billion your max cost allowed?
And, the fences are working.
Supporting Evidence:
Fences work
(www.conservativereview.com)
Nothing is failproof. But, doing nothing guarentees failure. We have had extreme failure in this area.
No it won't, and doing something wrong isn't itself a solution. It just makes things worse.
Some illegals may climb over, its doubtful that a signicant amt of people could climb the wall easily, without being caught, and thrown back.
Its ridiculous to allow the massive number of illegals to enter, year after year after year, the way it has.
There are many ways of getting over/under/around a wall, and you are trying to shoot your face to spite your foot, to use a common phrase.
If you want to fix a problem, it's important to find an ACTUAL solution, instead of one that just makes you feel better whilst costing the country tens of trillions of dollars.