Why Is Trump's Wall A Bad Thing?

[SunsetBengal]

(01-29-2019, 01:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What are you talking about?  Democrats still want to stop illegal immigration. 

Do they, really?  I have trouble believing that statement, as virtually ALL Cities and States with Sanctuary status toward illegal aliens are in Democrat controlled area.

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2019, 02:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Do they, really?  I have trouble believing that statement, as virtually ALL Cities and States with Sanctuary status toward illegal aliens are in Democrat controlled area.

Focusing on that one thing doesn't do the conversation surrounding the issue much justice. Many people are in favor of sanctuary cities for a variety of reasons. Sanctuary cities are mostly about objections to the tactics of ICE than they are about "open borders." Most of my lefty pals think people should have to come in legally, but that we need to make it easier for people who are coming here to better themselves.

[fredtoast]

(01-29-2019, 02:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Do they, really?  I have trouble believing that statement, as virtually ALL Cities and States with Sanctuary status toward illegal aliens are in Democrat controlled area.

Sanctuary cities are mostly about the actions of ICE, not border security.  Many Republicans objected to Trump's policy to separate children from their parents who were seeking asylum.  Does that mean all of those republicans also wanted open borders?

The fact is "Democrats want open borders" is just a right wing speaking point with no basis in truth.  Democrats have always voted for funding for border security.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2019, 01:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You know Obama bashed all the illegal immigrants crossing the border and said that we need to stop it, right? So when Trump wants to do what Obama talked about doing, why’s stopping illegal immigration suddenly wrong?

Who is saying stopping illegal immigration is wrong?

I never voted for Obama, so I don't really care what he said, however Obama focused on official deportation rather than turning away at the border. Data showed that those who went through the official deportation process were less likely to be repeat crossers. 

That's a very different approach from wanting to spend billions on a wall, so, yes, people can criticize one and support the other. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2019, 01:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I have never said that a will is the end all, but it will put a serious curb on it.
The other thing is update where people cross Land and fly out and by sea. Get a server in place to track all of that. I bet once done, the overstays aren't nearly as much as you think. The problems with them is if the person has filed an AOS then they are allowed to stay in the US even if their visa expires, however, once approved, they don't back them out of those numbers they keep reporting them as overstays, and even people that do leave on time, aren't always tracked correctly cause of the current broken system.

Will it put a serious curb on it? What exactly are you basing that off of?

[SunsetBengal]

(01-29-2019, 03:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sanctuary cities are mostly about the actions of ICE, not border security. 

Offering sanctuary to people in the Country illegally is a direct contradiction to the notion of border security, and leads to the perception that those who would offer sanctuary are indeed opposed to having secure borders in the first place.  Those sort of protective policies lead to encourage those who would attempt to get into the Country, by any means possible.

[fredtoast]

(01-29-2019, 04:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Offering sanctuary to people in the Country illegally is a direct contradiction to the notion of border security, and leads to the perception that those who would offer sanctuary are indeed opposed to having secure borders in the first place.  Those sort of protective policies lead to encourage those who would attempt to get into the Country, by any means possible.

Wrong.  It is very possible to be in favor of border security yet be opposed to destroying families who are already here.  Just like it is possible to be against murder yet still oppose the death penalty for murderers.  Would you argue that anyone who opposes the death penalty is encouraging murderers?

But even if you do believe that Democrats in Sanctuary Cities believe in open borders that does not change the fact that Democrats in Congress consistently vote for funding to secure our borders.

The claim the Democrats want "Open borders" is just a right wing speaking point with no basis in fact.

[masonbengals fan]

Democrats have voted for building walls in the past but now that Trump is for it they have become immoral. Just more TDS.

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2019, 04:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Offering sanctuary to people in the Country illegally is a direct contradiction to the notion of border security, and leads to the perception that those who would offer sanctuary are indeed opposed to having secure borders in the first place.  Those sort of protective policies lead to encourage those who would attempt to get into the Country, by any means possible.

I believe you might have a misunderstanding of what sanctuary city policies actually entail. Essentially, sanctuary city status means that a local government will not cooperate with ICE in the detention of an undocumented immigrant. It doesn't mean that ICE cannot detain them on their own within the city, it means that local law enforcement will not be assisting and will not be notifying ICE when they take someone into custody that they determine to be undocumented. So an undocumented immigrant being in a sanctuary city still runs a risk of being detained and deported.

[fredtoast]

(01-29-2019, 05:00 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Democrats have voted for building walls in the past but now that Trump is for it they have become immoral. Just more TDS.

This comment is just more TBS.  Anyone who falls for this line needs to pull his head out of the echo chamber and learn some facts. 

Democrats have voted for building fences and other types of border security before.  In fact they are still voting for funding for border security.  But they have never voted to spend the type of money Trump wants for his wall.  

[fredtoast]

(01-29-2019, 05:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  It means that local law enforcement will not be assisting and will not be notifying ICE when they take someone into custody that they determine to be undocumented.

If it is a felony then many (if not all) sanctuary cities will still inform ICE.

[masonbengals fan]

Money is still in negotiation.

[fredtoast]

(01-29-2019, 05:11 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Money is still in negotiation.

If Dems are smart they will negotiate.  Trump is over a barrel with his pants pulled down. The wall was the centerpiece of his campaign, but he could not get it funded even when Republicans controlled both houses of congress.  Since no one seems to care about the national debt the Dems should just give him the $5 billion but get something really big back in return like permanent protection for the dreamers.

[masonbengals fan]

I agree

[*bfine32*]

(01-29-2019, 02:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Do they, really?  I have trouble believing that statement, as virtually ALL Cities and States with Sanctuary status toward illegal aliens are in Democrat controlled area.

I think the Dems want to stop Illegal immigration, but if we can't (wink, wink) they feel they should be allowed to vote or at a minimum be included on a census without disclosing citizenship.

It just reads well.

[Benton]

Why wouldn't Dems want to stop illegal immigration?

Two of the biggest chunks of their support is organized labor and liberals. Cheap migrant labor is something organized labor leaders have to fight against when trying to promote the benefits of skilled labor. Liberals, by and large, advocate for a streamlined (and generally easier) process for legalized entries. Illegal residents take away resources that could be used to expedite the process.

The whole "Democrats want open borders" is as crazy as "republicans want to get rid of education."

[*Nately120*]

(01-29-2019, 06:44 PM)Benton Wrote: Why wouldn't Dems want to stop illegal immigration?

Two of the biggest chunks of their support is organized labor and liberals. Cheap migrant labor is something organized labor leaders have to fight against when trying to promote the event is of soiled labor. Liberals, by and large, advocate for a streamlined (and generally easier) process for legalized entries. Illegal residents take away resources that could be used to expedite the process.

The whole "Democrats want open borders" is as crazy as "republicans want to get rid of education."

I recall it being a bit over a decade ago when democrats were the ones complaining about illegal immigration and the right wing response was "tough luck, you shouldn't be in a lazy, overpaid union with a job that can be replaced by an illegal immigrant."  

Somehow illegals went from coming here to "take jobs wimpy liberal Americans are too spoiled and lazy to do" to coming here to go on welfare and rape and pillage.  Wacky.

[CJD]

Here are a few issues with the Wall:

1. The land that the Wall would be built on is, for the most part, privately owned land. So the land would need to be purchased or seized from those private citizens before construction can begin. This will cost money and will likely create controversy among people who do not want to sell their land (or have it seized and "compensated" for it).
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/donald-trump-border-wall-eminent-domain/521958/

2. The Wall won't stop most of the immigration and drug problems that Trump claims it will. Almost all drugs come in through legal points of entry, hidden in other legitimate imported goods.
Many illegal immigrants are not those who crossed the border but, rather, people who came in via legal means, such as student visas, and then overstayed their visa.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/fact-check-mike-pence-donald-trump-drugs-crossing-southern-border-wall/2591279002/

3. There's no telling what impact it will have on the environment around the Wall. This could cause issues with migration routes for several indigenous animals and may cause water flow issues as well.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-wall-could-cause-serious-environmental-damage/

4. 5 Billion dollars is not how much the Wall will cost. Non-partisan estimates have ranged anywhere from 22 billion to 31 billion dollars for the entire length of the border. Even Fox News has reported their estimate as 25 billion dollars. 5 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket for what will end up being needed for this wall. And that's before you even account for the maintenance required, which could be anywhere from 150 million per year to 750 million per year, depending on the style of wall, the weather the wall encounters and any possible damage done to the wall from people trying to cross it. And that's all assuming the construction of this wall goes smoothly. If problems are encountered, who knows how much that cost could balloon to.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-how-much-it-will-actually-cost-according-to-a-statistician

5. A wall that doesn't have supervision can be scaled or burrowed under with little consequence. Border Patrol even had a meeting with Trump to show him evidence of tunnels burrowed under the existing sections of Wall on the border as proof that a Wall does not stop illegal immigration. More wall without more border patrol officers would mean very little. This further increases the theoretical cost of the wall over time. However, the reason they have not already hired more border patrol agents is that they simply do not need them right now. "In 1986, Border Patrol agents along the Southern border apprehended an average of 42 illegal immigrants every month.  That number fell to 2 a month by 2016 – one apprehension for every couple of weeks on the job." So building a wall that would require more patrolling while we already don't need as many border patrol agents in the current state of things doesn't make all that much sense.
https://www.cato.org/blog/two-reasons-not-hire-more-border-patrol-agents

In short, this wall is not about border security. It is about a meaningless campaign promise Trump made in 2015 and 2016 and now he has to find some sort of justification for building a Wall that statistics show will either not work, will cause damage to the environment, will cause endless Eminent Domain issues, will cost way more than the President is claiming and is easily circumvented by illegal immigrants unless the work force is significantly increased along the border as well. Or all of the above.

It's just a bad idea. The better way to improve the illegal immigration issue is to hold employers who hire illegal immigrants accountable. If an illegal immigrant is unable to get a job, they have no reason to stay in America. Of course, the other problem with that is that a lot of the jobs that illegal immigrants do are jobs that their employers CAN'T find Americans willing to do, like migrant farm workers and fish and meat treatment/packing plants.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/08/24/do-immigrants-steal-jobs-from-american-workers/

[SunsetBengal]

(01-29-2019, 03:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sanctuary cities are mostly about border security.  Many Republicans objected to Trump's policy to separate children from their parents who were entering the United States illegally.  Does that mean all of those republicans also wanted open borders? (Likely so, as those are the Republicans In Name Only..)

The fact is "Democrats want open borders", and it's just the truth.  Democrats have always pretended to support border security.  

 

[Benton]

(01-30-2019, 01:01 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Here are a few issues with the Wall:

1. The land that the Wall would be built on is, for the most part, privately owned land. So the land would need to be purchased or seized from those private citizens before construction can begin. This will cost money and will likely create controversy among people who do not want to sell their land (or have it seized and "compensated" for it).
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/donald-trump-border-wall-eminent-domain/521958/

2. The Wall won't stop most of the immigration and drug problems that Trump claims it will. Almost all drugs come in through legal points of entry, hidden in other legitimate imported goods.
Many illegal immigrants are not those who crossed the border but, rather, people who came in via legal means, such as student visas, and then overstayed their visa.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/fact-check-mike-pence-donald-trump-drugs-crossing-southern-border-wall/2591279002/

3. There's no telling what impact it will have on the environment around the Wall. This could cause issues with migration routes for several indigenous animals and may cause water flow issues as well.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trumps-wall-could-cause-serious-environmental-damage/

4. 5 Billion dollars is not how much the Wall will cost. Non-partisan estimates have ranged anywhere from 22 billion to 31 billion dollars for the entire length of the border. Even Fox News has reported their estimate as 25 billion dollars. 5 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket for what will end up being needed for this wall. And that's before you even account for the maintenance required, which could be anywhere from 150 million per year to 750 million per year, depending on the style of wall, the weather the wall encounters and any possible damage done to the wall from people trying to cross it. And that's all assuming the construction of this wall goes smoothly. If problems are encountered, who knows how much that cost could balloon to.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-how-much-it-will-actually-cost-according-to-a-statistician

5. A wall that doesn't have supervision can be scaled or burrowed under with little consequence. Border Patrol even had a meeting with Trump to show him evidence of tunnels burrowed under the existing sections of Wall on the border as proof that a Wall does not stop illegal immigration. More wall without more border patrol officers would mean very little. This further increases the theoretical cost of the wall over time. However, the reason they have not already hired more border patrol agents is that they simply do not need them right now. "In 1986, Border Patrol agents along the Southern border apprehended an average of 42 illegal immigrants every month.  That number fell to 2 a month by 2016 – one apprehension for every couple of weeks on the job." So building a wall that would require more patrolling while we already don't need as many border patrol agents in the current state of things doesn't make all that much sense.
https://www.cato.org/blog/two-reasons-not-hire-more-border-patrol-agents

In short, this wall is not about border security. It is about a meaningless campaign promise Trump made in 2015 and 2016 and now he has to find some sort of justification for building a Wall that statistics show will either not work, will cause damage to the environment, will cause endless Eminent Domain issues, will cost way more than the President is claiming and is easily circumvented by illegal immigrants unless the work force is significantly increased along the border as well. Or all of the above.

It's just a bad idea. The better way to improve the illegal immigration issue is to hold employers who hire illegal immigrants accountable. If an illegal immigrant is unable to get a job, they have no reason to stay in America. Of course, the other problem with that is that a lot of the jobs that illegal immigrants do are jobs that their employers CAN'T find Americans willing to do, like migrant farm workers and fish and meat treatment/packing plants.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/08/24/do-immigrants-steal-jobs-from-american-workers/

Well laid out. And to the bold, that's what I've been preaching for ever. The problem for politicians is, a lot of their donors don't really want reforms. Obama moved toward targeting employers (which was good) but didn't arrest illegal employees during raids (which was bad).

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-01-22/is-ice-finally-targeting-employers-of-illegal-workers

 
Obama did massively enforce fines on employers, though.

Quote:"Obama, in his wisdom, I think – and I'm a Republican, I don't usually say that about Obama – decided that a more effective way to do it is through audits. You don't get as much media, but it's more effective. You get many more of them. And you don't get just people that are there that day, you get anybody in a place's workforce that isn't legit," says Tamara Jacoby, president of the group ImmigrationWorks USA, who advises small- and medium-sized businesses as well as GOP lawmakers. "You go from people who are there in riot gear to people who are in green eyeshades."

There were some high-profile targets that faced scrutiny under Obama: Abercrombie & Fitch and Chipotle, for example, got hit with sanctions. But even with the shift in focus from raids to paperwork, the results were mixed. The fines, restricted by congressionally set limits, tended to be paltry and easily absorbed into a company's bottom line. Abercrombie, for example, was finedjust $1 million in 2010. And the results, though aimed at employers, often still had a disproportionate impact on employees: Chipotle, in its settlement with the Obama administration, was forced to fire hundreds of its restaurants' employees across the country.