Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[hollodero]

(12-12-2018, 08:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/24/donald-trump-europe-border-walls-migrants/532572002/

I find it quite ironic that this is a distinct anti-wall article, stating things like 

Quote:"It serves no purpose other than political theater. It should come down. I would urge Americans to examine whether Trump’s wall will really make them safer or better off," Molnar said.

Quote:A recent visit by USA TODAY to Hungary and Slovenia — the two countries with the region's largest expanse of fences — revealed that those who live and work near these barriers often find they serve little purpose

...yeah that's what we usually find. I too wouldn't know of these European countries that have built an effective wall. Uneffective fences, we do have some of those.
What really helped reduce the immigration influx was Europe paying Turkey to keep the bulk of Syrian refugees in their country. That's what did the trick. Not a Hungarian fence.

(12-13-2018, 01:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If Mexico loses out on the deal then they've "paid for it". 

If they have to provide social services for those turned away from our borders the they've "paid for it"

I get it's a semantics argument; but one Trump can easily point to. 

But he pointed to remittance fees and the trade surplus, however that one can be tapped. But OK. I do think saying "hey we built a wall, hence Mexicans stay in Mexico on Mexico's expense, so Mexico paid for the wall" is lamer than what most supporters had in mind.

What I always wonder though, how helpful is it to further burden Mexico and hence make the country poorer. An increased immigration pressure seems like a logical consequence, cutting into the possible "positive" effects of a wall.

[GMDino]

(12-13-2018, 05:54 AM)hollodero Wrote: I find it quite ironic that this is a distinct anti-wall article, stating things like 



...yeah that's what we usually find. I too wouldn't know of these European countries that have built an effective wall. Uneffective fences, we do have some of those.
What really helped reduce the immigration influx was Europe paying Turkey to keep the bulk of Syrian refugees in their country. That's what did the trick. Not a Hungarian fence.



But he pointed to remittance fees and the trade surplus, however that one can be tapped. But OK. I do think saying "hey we built a wall, hence Mexicans stay in Mexico on Mexico's expense, so Mexico paid for the wall" is lamer than what most supporters had in mind.

What I always wonder though, how helpful is it to further burden Mexico and hence make the country poorer. An increased immigration pressure seems like a logical consequence, cutting into the possible "positive" effects of a wall.

To the bold: Of course but no one on this board advocating for the wall also claims to be a supporter of Trump.  They just "have to" defend him. 

All seriousness aside you hit on something important:  It's not just R vs D right now.  It's people refusing admit they fell for the tag line, sales message and they got duped by a slick salesman.  So they will twist and spin to make it seem like Trump (and they) are still "right".

And that goes well beyond the limits of this message board.

[GMDino]

(12-13-2018, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, but what have they done for us LATELY?   
 
The Montagnards fought and died alongside U.S. special forces for years, backing a losing horse to the end.

The admission of those people in the 70s and 80s was the U.S. thank you for their service and a minimal attempt, at least, to honor THEIR sacrifice of home, freedom and lives in OUR national interest. I don't often get exercised in this forum, but I have to say this was just blood boiling to read.

How can any U.S. military member who still puts honor and duty above profit and political advantage stand this?

I don't have any special love for ARVN/RVN immigrants; but their children are Americans now. Just so NASTY to think of sending any of these people back as part of some "clamp down" Trump show of signing orders and the Nielsen tool looking on in fear and approval.

They'll just ignore it and then sometime in the near future say they don't like "everything" Trump and his administration does.

[jj22]

(12-13-2018, 01:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I get it's a semantics argument; but one Trump can easily point to. 

You mean one that he can easily con his dwindling supporters into believing.

The rest of us (majority) know Mexico isn't paying for the wall. Just like we know there is nothing "new" in these deals that he claims are so much more better than the previous ones. Just a name change and modern version of the current ones.

[*Nately120*]

(12-13-2018, 09:44 AM)GMDino Wrote: To the bold: Of course but no one on this board advocating for the wall also claims to be a supporter of Trump.  They just "have to" defend him. 

All seriousness aside you hit on something important:  It's not just R vs D right now.  It's people refusing admit they fell for the tag line, sales message and they got duped by a slick salesman.  So they will twist and spin to make it seem like Trump (and they) are still "right".

And that goes well beyond the limits of this message board.

One interesting thing about the perspectives on Trump is that the people who think he's the most amazing businessman on earth who could sell ice to the Eskimos refuses to believe that they've been duped by him.  Meanwhile, the people who can't stand Trump fully believe that he has sold himself into the white house through his cunning lies...oh, but he's a crap salesman, though.

[GMDino]

(12-13-2018, 12:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: One interesting thing about the perspectives on Trump is that the people who think he's the most amazing businessman on earth who could sell ice to the Eskimos refuses to believe that they've been duped by him.  Meanwhile, the people who can't stand Trump fully believe that he has sold himself into the white house through his cunning lies...oh, but he's a crap salesman, though.

There's a sucker born every minute.

You don't have to fool all of the people all of the time.

Etc....

[BmorePat87]

(12-13-2018, 12:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: One interesting thing about the perspectives on Trump is that the people who think he's the most amazing businessman on earth who could sell ice to the Eskimos refuses to believe that they've been duped by him.  Meanwhile, the people who can't stand Trump fully believe that he has sold himself into the white house through his cunning lies...oh, but he's a crap salesman, though.

The middle ground is that his style of sales does not translate into effective governing. He was fully capable of selling himself to a variety of conservatives and blue collar moderates, and the rest of the GOP was willing to go with him simply because he wasn't Hillary. He is a great campaigner who was able to completely dismiss issues that would sink anyone else.

But now that he is in office, his usual style of making demands and having everyone else do it doesn't work. He's not negotiating selling his name to a Saudi hotel. He's not building a golf course then paying the contractor 50% of what was negotiated and killing them in legal fees so that they cannot get what is owed. He's not starting a fake school and settling for a fraction of what he scammed people for. 

He actually has to work with legislators to pass policy. So when he comes in with his talking points and demands, they simply call his bluff. He claims he has the votes for the wall in the House, he just doesn't bother because he doesn't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, so Democrats need to appease him. Instead they call his bluff and tell him to try to get the votes, and when he fails, there is a bipartisan bill without his wall that will pass and get sent to his desk. 

[*Nately120*]

(12-13-2018, 01:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The middle ground is that his style of sales does not translate into effective governing. He was fully capable of selling himself to a variety of conservatives and blue collar moderates, and the rest of the GOP was willing to go with him simply because he wasn't Hillary. He is a great campaigner who was able to completely dismiss issues that would sink anyone else.

But now that he is in office, his usual style of making demands and having everyone else do it doesn't work. He's not negotiating selling his name to a Saudi hotel. He's not building a golf course then paying the contractor 50% of what was negotiated and killing them in legal fees so that they cannot get what is owed. He's not starting a fake school and settling for a fraction of what he scammed people for. 

He actually has to work with legislators to pass policy. So when he comes in with his talking points and demands, they simply call his bluff. He claims he has the votes for the wall in the House, he just doesn't bother because he doesn't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, so Democrats need to appease him. Instead they call his bluff and tell him to try to get the votes, and when he fails, there is a bipartisan bill without his wall that will pass and get sent to his desk. 

I agree with you on this.  People don't understand why the government and a business aren't and can't be the same thing, anyways. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-12-2018, 10:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Are they like the Right's SPLC?

No, because the SPLC isn't a think tank. SPLC is a more leftist version of the ACLU.

[GMDino]

(12-13-2018, 01:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Some do.
Others just dislike all things/people liberal more.



To be honest, in principle both sides do that. I guess D would not go that far as to rally behind a Trump, but how would I know. But distorted, oversimplified partisan arguments can be found across the board. I don't think the main point is not wanting to admit that one got duped, but to admit that the annoying liberal friends and family members could have been right. What a defeat that would be. It's always R vs D and only R vs D, the way I see it. Which is, of course, from the outside alone.

I won't argue that both sides don't try to snooker their voters in some way.

I will argue that an awful lot of people defend and spin for Trump while claiming to not support him.

[Mike M (the other one)]

ok so FAIR is a Major Right Leaning Group, so they obviously know how to make 1+1=3.
Fair says $113B
Fine, let's say they are greatly exagerating.

What % does it not make the wall profitable in a few years??
The cost of the wall will be $25B for this practice.

10% is $11.3B/yr which the wall still pays for itself in a few years.

Forbes says $18.5B/yr just in medical costs alone, few years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-american-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/#631eef7c12c4

DACA alone has already cost us almost $50B, kids that wouldn't be here and that price goes up Annually.

I Don't know, in my eyes the Billions we spend for a wall will eventually pay for itelf. How quick it really pays for itself is the question.
Factor in the Hit Cartels will also take, and it's almost a no-brainer.

But Yet, I still haven't seen anyone give me a viable alternative that would be as effective.

[fredtoast]

(12-13-2018, 06:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: But Yet, I still haven't seen anyone give me a viable alternative that would be as effective.

Who said a wall would be effective?  They have ladders and ropes in Mexico.  A wall will not be that effective at all..  A huge waste of money.

[Belsnickel]

(12-13-2018, 06:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: ok so FAIR is a Major Right Leaning Group, so they obviously know how to make 1+1=3.
Fair says $113B
Fine, let's say they are greatly exagerating.

What % does it not make the wall profitable in a few years??
The cost of the wall will be $25B for this practice.

10% is $11.3B/yr which the wall still pays for itself in a few years.

Forbes says $18.5B/yr just in medical costs alone, few years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-american-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/#631eef7c12c4

DACA alone has already cost us almost $50B, kids that wouldn't be here and that price goes up Annually.

I Don't know, in my eyes the Billions we spend for a wall will eventually pay for itelf. How quick it really pays for itself is the question.
Factor in the Hit Cartels will also take, and it's almost a no-brainer.

But Yet, I still haven't seen anyone give me a viable alternative that would be as effective.

FAIR's numbers take into account services to children that are citizens and leave out potential benefits to our economy or any tax revenue generated. To be quite frank, it could be that undocumented immigrants provide a net benefit to our economy rather than cost us money.

[Dill]

(12-13-2018, 01:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: To be honest, in principle both sides do that. I guess D would not go that far as to rally behind a Trump, but how would I know. But distorted, oversimplified partisan arguments can be found across the board. I don't think the main point is not wanting to admit that one got duped, but to admit that the annoying liberal friends and family members could have been right. What a defeat that would be. It's always R vs D and only R vs D, the way I see it. Which is, of course, from the outside alone.

Here is the view from the inside, from an "annoying liberal friend and family member" of actual Trump supporters.

You can't have heads without tails.  If your liberal friends and family are right, then you were duped. Deeply so.

The "reading" of Trump as grifter or savior goes to one's fundamental ability to interpret political reality.

Anyone still supporting Trump two years in knows that if s/he is wrong about Trump, s/he is wrong about a LOT of things.  The most common sources of political authority--Fox, the local minister, Rush, and the guys at work who hate PC--are fundamentally untrustworthy guides. And you cannot accept the alternatives.

My Indian doctor, in his ignorance of US politics, originally supported Trump because he thought the guy would bring health care costs down. A few months in, he recognized the incompetence and had no trouble changing his mind. There are people like that, who don't pay that much attention to politics or take the time to look into Trump's personal history, or do but don't think bankrupticies, Russian money, and reckless insults are serious red flags. They really are interested in practical solutions, like getting jobs back to a depressed region.  Their identity is not in play when they vote.

The Trump base appears to be an altogether different animal, acting out in a worldview set in place before Trump's presidency and activated by it. Why do people who know nothing about climate science and are not particularly invested in oil companies flly into rage at the mention of climate change and vote for politicians who will erase the very term from all Federal policy, along with funding research? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/climate/climate-change-trump.html

How can they shift Putin and Kim from evil to admirable to evil again--sometimes within hours, without a hint of cognitive dissonance?
How can they scream "lock her up" at a Trump opponent accused of rumored corruption (because they and Trump stand for rule of law) then shout the same at any who accuse Trump of worse--based on his own words and public behavior?  How does keeping out "illegal" foreigners become more important than their own health care, while at the same time they ignore a foreign power's attack on US elections?

Could Trump shoot a liberal on 5th avenue--or a CIA/FBI director, or any living ex-president--and get away with it? He might, with right, answer "yes", so far as his base is concerned.

85% of Democrats would not go so far as to rally behind a Trump. Nor would 15% of the Republican party.  Both sides do it--and do not.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-13-2018, 12:24 AM)Dill Wrote: hollodero

(12-13-2018, 05:54 AM)hollodero Wrote: I find it quite ironic that this is a distinct anti-wall article, stating things like 



...yeah that's what we usually find. I too wouldn't know of these European countries that have built an effective wall. Uneffective fences, we do have some of those.
What really helped reduce the immigration influx was Europe paying Turkey to keep the bulk of Syrian refugees in their country. That's what did the trick. Not a Hungarian fence.



But he pointed to remittance fees and the trade surplus, however that one can be tapped. But OK. I do think saying "hey we built a wall, hence Mexicans stay in Mexico on Mexico's expense, so Mexico paid for the wall" is lamer than what most supporters had in mind.

What I always wonder though, how helpful is it to further burden Mexico and hence make the country poorer. An increased immigration pressure seems like a logical consequence, cutting into the possible "positive" effects of a wall.

Uneffective?
How can you say that, when several hundred were walking on over per day, down to now very few?

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-places-where-walls-work/

Israel-West Bank: The border wall — actually much more a security fence — was constructed in the wake of the 2001-2002 terror campaign in Israel. Almost immediately, the number of successful terror attacks in the Jewish state dropped by 90%. Indeed, it is Israel to which the Trump administration and wall proponents might turn to resolve one of the main arguments about duplicating the system along the US-Mexican border. After all, Israel has developed anti-tunnel radar and other technology to stymie Hamas (and Hezbollah) terrorist who might try to tunnel. Jerusalem might have developed that technology for Israel’s own security, but it could just as easily be replicated to detect, interdict, and destroy tunnels under the US border.

Morocco-Algeria: Morocco fought a bloody insurgency and terrorist campaign sponsored by Algeria’s and Cuba’s Cold War proxy, the Polisario Front. The Polisario became ineffective, however, after Morocco built its famous 1,700-mile system of sand berms, fences, mine fields, and ditches.

Cyprus: It was the United Nations which built a wall dividing Cyprus between the northern Turkish portion and the remaining Greek section after Turkey invaded and occupied parts of the island nation in 1974. To cite international law as opposed to walls is, therefore, nonsense since the United Nations created the precedent.

India-Pakistan: India and Pakistan fought wars in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999, that collectively killed millions of people. The two sides have had a more than three decade-long standoff on the Siachen glacier and several skirmishes elsewhere along the disputed border. Because Pakistani terror groups regularly try to infiltrate and wreak havoc in India, India constructed a border fence and wall system to keep Pakistanis out. That’s a good thing, because nowhere else in the world could a simple border incident so quickly escalate into nuclear war.

Turkey-Syria: Throughout the 1990s, Turkey faced an escalating challenge from the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a group leading a Kurdish insurgency against the Turkish Army. Indeed, Syria only seriously cracked down on the PKK when Turkey credibly threatened war. Turkey subsequently reinforced the border with fences, mine fields, and no-man’s land, and it worked. The next 15 years was largely quiet. It was only when Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan removed many of the defenses and turned a blind eye to border security that the terrorism problem in Syria—and its subsequent blowback inside Turkey itself—grew so great.

There are other walls out there, of course: Saudi Arabia has just built a wall along its disputed border with Yemen to keep Yemeni-based terrorists out of the Saudi Kingdom. India has a long-standing border fence with Bangladesh to prevent illegal immigration. Hungary is building a fence to protect its borders. Greece maintains a heavily protected border with Turkey. Spain fortifies its enclaves in Africa.

Simply put, if the goal is to protect national security and curtail illegal immigration, the record is clear: walls work.

-----------------------

They can work just fine. The goal of the wall is to stop migrants from coming unwanted to your country and to preserve your Economy.
Again, if anyone has a vaild or more effective way, I'd love to hear it.

One way to collect the money is to charge non-USC's an entry fee every time someone enters the US. Use that to create a better systems of monitoring people coming in and out and maintainence for a wall. A fee on all out going remittiances would also work. There's plenty of little ways to get the money. Not sure how much work Trump would have to do to get those pussed thru. And EO?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-13-2018, 07:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: FAIR's numbers take into account services to children that are citizens and leave out potential benefits to our economy or any tax revenue generated. To be quite frank, it could be that undocumented immigrants provide a net benefit to our economy rather than cost us money.I

In what world? They don't generate enough Tax money vs the Services used.
Didn't you see the Forbes article at 19B? That's just some of the medical side of it.
We haven't even touched on how much it costs pers student that shouldn't be here. ($14k per student to school them).
I believe the average is 297k kids born each year to illegal parents??
297 k X 14 k= 4.158 k x 12 (cause there's 13 1 for each year) = 54.054 B Per year. It will go up and down some, but each time a group graduates HS, another moves in at Kindergarten.
This doesn't include costs of being born that we usually eat as well. The average Cost for child birth is $10.8k
so 297k x 10.8k is another $3.21 B
Since the majority of illegal immigrants are in poverty add in things such as:
medicaid
food stamps
housing
WiC
Free Breakfast/lunches at schools
TANF
SSI
and who knows what else.
So how far off is that 113B when I'm already half there with out including benefits?
Now before you guys go we get it back once they are adults and working, wrong again.
It is very typical that people born to a social class remain with in that social class, the movement between social classes is very minimal.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2018, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This argument is so lame. 

Folks have lock picks, but I still lock my doors. Is that a bad idea? 

I agree and have stated that Trump handled this meeting poorly; however, building a wall was a campaign promise and he feels the need to fight to keep his promise. If we don't like it we can make a change in 2020. But let's not pretend that this is the only Promise a POTUS has made that he fights to defend. I'd imagine Obama was pretty adamant about the ACA

(12-12-2018, 08:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes he handled it poorly. He could easily have had spreadsheets of data backing him up to slam them with and embarrased them.

And yea, Ropes and Ladders is lame. Can't wait for the Dig Tunnels part to kick in. You and I both know it's coming.

(12-13-2018, 06:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who said a wall would be effective?  They have ladders and ropes in Mexico.  A wall will not be that effective at all..  A huge waste of money.

You literally cannot make this stuff up. 

[Belsnickel]

(12-13-2018, 08:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In what world? They don't generate enough Tax money vs the Services used.
Didn't you see the Forbes article at 19B? That's just some of the medical side of it.
We haven't even touched on how much it costs pers student that shouldn't be here. ($14k per student to school them).
I believe the average is 297k kids born each year to illegal parents??
297 k X 14 k= 4.158 k x 12 (cause there's 13 1 for each year) = 54.054 B Per year. It will go up and down some, but each time a group graduates HS, another moves in at Kindergarten.
This doesn't include costs of being born that we usually eat as well. The average Cost for child birth is $10.8k
so 297k x 10.8k is another $3.21 B
Since the majority of illegal immigrants are in poverty add in things such as:
medicaid
food stamps
housing
WiC
Free Breakfast/lunches at schools
TANF
SSI
and who knows what else.
So how far off is that 113B when I'm already half there with out including benefits?
Now before you guys go we get it back once they are adults and working, wrong again.
It is very typical that people born to a social class remain with in that social class, the movement between social classes is very minimal.

You've failed to address the CATO study cited that points out the flaw in the numbers you are using.

In all seriousness, for every legitimate study (not counting ones from racist think tanks) that indicates undocumented immigrants are a burden to our economy, I could find one that indicates they are a boon. This is not a settled matter, not matter how much you care to believe and no matter how many numbers you pull out of thin air. Actual economists are not in agreement on the impact to economy, whether positive or negative, from undocumented immigration. This is why I said it could be. I don't know the answer for certain, I just know that I'm going to trust actual experts on the matter rather then white supremacists.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-13-2018, 08:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Here is the view from the inside, from an "annoying liberal friend and family member" of actual Trump supporters.

You can't have heads without tails.  If your liberal friends and family are right, then you were duped. Deeply so.

The "reading" of Trump as grifter or savior goes to one's fundamental ability to interpret political reality.

Anyone still supporting Trump two years in knows that if s/he is wrong about Trump, s/he is wrong about a LOT of things.  The most common sources of political authority--Fox, the local minister, Rush, and the guys at work who hate PC--are fundamentally untrustworthy guides. And you cannot accept the alternatives.

My Indian doctor, in his ignorance of US politics, originally supported Trump because he thought the guy would bring health care costs down. A few months in, he recognized the incompetence and had no trouble changing his mind. There are people like that, who don't pay that much attention to politics or take the time to look into Trump's personal history, or do but don't think bankrupticies, Russian money, and reckless insults are serious red flags. They really are interested in practical solutions, like getting jobs back to a depressed region.  Their identity is not in play when they vote.

The Trump base appears to be an altogether different animal, acting out in a worldview set in place before Trump's presidency and activated by it. Why do people who know nothing about climate science and are not particularly invested in oil companies flly into rage at the mention of climate change and vote for politicians who will erase the very term from all Federal policy, along with funding research? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/climate/climate-change-trump.html

How can they shift Putin and Kim from evil to admirable to evil again--sometimes within hours, without a hint of cognitive dissonance?
How can they scream "lock her up" at a Trump opponent accused of rumored corruption (because they and Trump stand for rule of law) then shout the same at any who accuse Trump of worse--based on his own words and public behavior?  How does keeping out "illegal" foreigners become more important than their own health care, while at the same time they ignore a foreign power's attack on US elections?

Could Trump shoot a liberal on 5th avenue--or a CIA/FBI director, or any living ex-president--and get away with it? He might, with right, answer "yes", so far as his base is concerned.

85% of Democrats would not go so far as to rally behind a Trump. Nor would 15% of the Republican party.  Both sides do it--and do not.

How about a view from the other side?

I support Trump, but not 100%, there are things he does I don't like, but that's life. Just like with Obama before him, i'm sure there were things his supporters didn't like that he did.

Why would you say we are being conned? 1 Man can't fix all of the problems. He has made unemployment and the economy better, toss in stock market and people are doing well, working and being able to put food on the table and jobs are more secure now than they have been in recent years. Those are things the common people care most about.

Did you have a Turkey or Ham for Thanksgiving this year?? Got Presents under the tree this year?? This is where the left is out of touch. They are more concerned with pleasing and catering to each ethnic/gender/social group. You know what I don't care about? Who sleeps with who and who marries who, who thinks they were born the wrong sex, your skin color. your religious preference. As long as you are not harming anyone and no one is trying to harm you, then I could care less. All of that has nothing to do with me having a nice honey baked ham for my Xmas dinner, a decent job in a good economy is what makes the majority of people happy.

Everything there is just an opinion piece. Nothing factual, just an attempt to play on emotions an make people feel bad about supporting Trump.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-13-2018, 08:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You've failed to address the CATO study cited that points out the flaw in the numbers you are using.

In all seriousness, for every legitimate study (not counting ones from racist think tanks) that indicates undocumented immigrants are a burden to our economy, I could find one that indicates they are a boon. This is not a settled matter, not matter how much you care to believe and no matter how many numbers you pull out of thin air. Actual economists are not in agreement on the impact to economy, whether positive or negative, from undocumented immigration. This is why I said it could be. I don't know the answer for certain, I just know that I'm going to trust actual experts on the matter rather then white supremacists.

??
I'm not using CATO Numbers at all here.

Look up averages of how much it costs per student in school (K12)
Look up how many Children were born last year to illegal parents.
Look up average cost of a normal child birth in the US.

Do some simple math. Think about the benefits those parents get from their Kids being USC's.

Those numbers are not made, up, are they perfect? No, I'm showing the maxes, what is the real % is the unknown, but I'm going to go high on that side.
Show me some of your numbers where it says they are good for the ecomonmy.
IRS Says there is about $20B unclaimed each year, still doesn't cover the costs of just sending the kids to school.

I don't know everything about all of this, but I do know simple math, Money In <<<<<<<< Money out and thats not good for future generations and a wall will change that to Money In << Money out over time. Isn't that the goal??