Why Is Trump's Wall A Bad Thing?

[Au165]

(02-01-2019, 11:47 AM)Benton Wrote: Good points. 

I think with bush, it was fear on both sides that they would look unamerican if they opposed anything. 

9/11 really made the whole Bush presidency a whole different animal. Not sure you can ever compare anything during that period to nearly any other presidency, maybe post pearl harbor, but even that was a little different in circumstances. 

[Au165]

(02-01-2019, 11:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: At what point do people stop bringing up information from garbage sources?

Since when did tabloids become garbage sources?!

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2019, 11:54 AM)Au165 Wrote: Since when did tabloids become garbage sources?!

I wasn't even referring to NY Post, but they were the ones to source their story from a garbage advocacy group that produces highly questionable reports and is often viewed as racist. So that would make them garbage, as well.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-29-2019, 03:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Will it put a serious curb on it? What exactly are you basing that off of?

1993 –  President Bill Clinton mandates construction on a 13-mile “Border Wall” along a line in the sand between San Diego and Tijuana. It is projected to cost $39 million and reduce border apprehensions from 100,000 per day to 5,000 per day for those 13 miles. Emigrants find other paths. 
2005  –  More than one million people are arrested crossing into the United States from Mexico. More than 500 die crossing. 
2006 –   President Bush signs the Secure Fences act, promising 700 miles of fencing on the border, plus a virtual wall across the entire 2,000-mile border.
2008 – The U. S. announces that a section of the barrier had been mistakenly built from 1 to 6 feet (2 meters) inside Mexican territory and must be moved.  Congress approves the Department of Homeland Security’s right to circumvent more than 30 environmental laws in a push to get fencing constructed by year’s end.
2011 –  The Department of Homeland Security completes 649 miles of barriers, including 350 miles of pedestrian fencing, at an estimated $6.5 million per mile, and 299 miles of vehicle barriers that cost approximately $1.7 million per mile. But $1 billion spent on a pilot program for “virtual surveillance” in Arizona yields only 53 miles of coverage. With the backing of the DHS, the Obama administration cuts funding for the rest of the hyper-expensive “virtual wall.”


Is it a coincidence that illegal immigration started going down after 2008 and has continued to decrease with walls and barriers in place in almost 1/3 of the total border length??

10 Years before wall vs 10 years after wall started, illegal immigration cut in half.

[BmorePat87]

(02-01-2019, 02:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1993 –  President Bill Clinton mandates construction on a 13-mile “Border Wall” along a line in the sand between San Diego and Tijuana. It is projected to cost $39 million and reduce border apprehensions from 100,000 per day to 5,000 per day for those 13 miles. Emigrants find other paths. 
2005  –  More than one million people are arrested crossing into the United States from Mexico. More than 500 die crossing. 
2006 –   President Bush signs the Secure Fences act, promising 700 miles of fencing on the border, plus a virtual wall across the entire 2,000-mile border.
2008 – The U. S. announces that a section of the barrier had been mistakenly built from 1 to 6 feet (2 meters) inside Mexican territory and must be moved.  Congress approves the Department of Homeland Security’s right to circumvent more than 30 environmental laws in a push to get fencing constructed by year’s end.
2011 –  The Department of Homeland Security completes 649 miles of barriers, including 350 miles of pedestrian fencing, at an estimated $6.5 million per mile, and 299 miles of vehicle barriers that cost approximately $1.7 million per mile. But $1 billion spent on a pilot program for “virtual surveillance” in Arizona yields only 53 miles of coverage. With the backing of the DHS, the Obama administration cuts funding for the rest of the hyper-expensive “virtual wall.”


Is it a coincidence that illegal immigration started going down after 2008 and has continued to decrease with walls and barriers in place in almost 1/3 of the total border length??

10 Years before wall vs 10 years after wall started, illegal immigration cut in half.

The San Diego Border Wall didn't start to deter crossings until they added hundreds of agents there. Even then, it just pushed crossings further down to places without as many agents.

Bush doubled the number of agents on the border during his time in office and Obama added another 25% on top of that. 

Walls didn't do anything. Double agents did. 

[GMDino]

(02-01-2019, 02:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1993 –  President Bill Clinton mandates construction on a 13-mile “Border Wall” along a line in the sand between San Diego and Tijuana. It is projected to cost $39 million and reduce border apprehensions from 100,000 per day to 5,000 per day for those 13 miles. Emigrants find other paths. 
2005  –  More than one million people are arrested crossing into the United States from Mexico. More than 500 die crossing. 
2006 –   President Bush signs the Secure Fences act, promising 700 miles of fencing on the border, plus a virtual wall across the entire 2,000-mile border.
2008 – The U. S. announces that a section of the barrier had been mistakenly built from 1 to 6 feet (2 meters) inside Mexican territory and must be moved.  Congress approves the Department of Homeland Security’s right to circumvent more than 30 environmental laws in a push to get fencing constructed by year’s end.
2011 –  The Department of Homeland Security completes 649 miles of barriers, including 350 miles of pedestrian fencing, at an estimated $6.5 million per mile, and 299 miles of vehicle barriers that cost approximately $1.7 million per mile. But $1 billion spent on a pilot program for “virtual surveillance” in Arizona yields only 53 miles of coverage. With the backing of the DHS, the Obama administration cuts funding for the rest of the hyper-expensive “virtual wall.”


Is it a coincidence that illegal immigration started going down after 2008 and has continued to decrease with walls and barriers in place in almost 1/3 of the total border length??

10 Years before wall vs 10 years after wall started, illegal immigration cut in half.

To the bold:  No.  The economy was in the tank.  Many immigrants come here to better themselves and make money to help their families.

[Benton]

(02-01-2019, 02:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1993 –  President Bill Clinton mandates construction on a 13-mile “Border Wall” along a line in the sand between San Diego and Tijuana. It is projected to cost $39 million and reduce border apprehensions from 100,000 per day to 5,000 per day for those 13 miles. Emigrants find other paths. 
2005  –  More than one million people are arrested crossing into the United States from Mexico. More than 500 die crossing. 
2006 –   President Bush signs the Secure Fences act, promising 700 miles of fencing on the border, plus a virtual wall across the entire 2,000-mile border.
2008 – The U. S. announces that a section of the barrier had been mistakenly built from 1 to 6 feet (2 meters) inside Mexican territory and must be moved.  Congress approves the Department of Homeland Security’s right to circumvent more than 30 environmental laws in a push to get fencing constructed by year’s end.
2011 –  The Department of Homeland Security completes 649 miles of barriers, including 350 miles of pedestrian fencing, at an estimated $6.5 million per mile, and 299 miles of vehicle barriers that cost approximately $1.7 million per mile. But $1 billion spent on a pilot program for “virtual surveillance” in Arizona yields only 53 miles of coverage. With the backing of the DHS, the Obama administration cuts funding for the rest of the hyper-expensive “virtual wall.”


Is it a coincidence that illegal immigration started going down after 2008 and has continued to decrease with walls and barriers in place in almost 1/3 of the total border length??

10 Years before wall vs 10 years after wall started, illegal immigration cut in half.

For the most part, yes,it's a coincidence.

That's around the time when our economy tanked. Jobs are far and away the biggest reasons immigrants come here. No jobs, no point. By that point, most of the auto manufacturers that left had opened factories in Mexico (something that started in the 90s and continued through today).

Basically, immigration is becoming less and less of a problem because Americans allowed politicans and special interests to lower our economy enough that immigrants don't have the incentive to come here. 

[Stonyhands]

(02-01-2019, 02:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: To the bold:  No.  The economy was in the tank.  Many immigrants come here to better themselves and make money to help their families.

...yeah and a lot of them come here to escape the rampant crime and to provide a safe environment for their family. The problem is that allowing open borders also means not being able to differentiate between who comes in...the family seeking a better opportunity and safety or the very people they are trying to get away from.

Just as murderers, rapists, gangbangers are such a small percentage of people within their population at their home country they are a small percentage of the people migrating illegally into this country as well.

If we just open our borders and let everybody in immigration will ramp way up including proportionally the amount of murderers, rapists, gang members. Soon the very thing these people were running away from will be on their doorsteps inside our borders.

[Stonyhands]

(02-01-2019, 11:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: At what point do people stop bringing up information from garbage sources?

https://youtu.be/un34XlVaLhI

You must be an expert on border security because you present yourself as someone who knows more than the actual border agents who deal with the issue on a daily basis.

Or is this just another garbage source?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-01-2019, 03:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There are just as many undocumented immigrantys working under false social security numbers paying FICA that they will never be able to collect.

So if we are just going to use "make believe" numbers I am going to say it all evens out.

Not even close.
I've shown those numbers several times.

The amount annually doesn't even pay for 1/3 the amount we spend on educating Anchor babies annually.

Stop spewing what the Left MSM keeps telling you. Look things up yourself.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-01-2019, 03:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump never offered amnesty.  He offered three year temporary protection.

Since Trump was theone that ended DACA he is offering less than he took away in ther first place.  

Why should we keep bending over for people that come here illegally? That's just an incentive for them to keep doing it.

I have already offered that they should be allowed to have a 5yr continuous (as long as they keep renewing) green card, but never allowed to be full USC's. They came here under fraudulent terms so that's the best offer I will allow. Their children can become USC's and once their children reach 18, then they can apply and get in line to make their parents USC's same as anyone else. But Amnesty is off the table.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-01-2019, 11:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: At what point do people stop bringing up information from garbage sources?

At what point do you actually provide something with an actual link so we can read it for ourselves?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-01-2019, 02:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The San Diego Border Wall didn't start to deter crossings until they added hundreds of agents there. Even then, it just pushed crossings further down to places without as many agents.

Bush doubled the number of agents on the border during his time in office and Obama added another 25% on top of that. 

Walls didn't do anything. Double agents did. 

The San Diego Wall is incomplete. Not only that, it has proven to have lowered the amount of illegal immigrants entering.
They just need to sort out their drug issues and finish the fencing/wall.

(02-01-2019, 02:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: To the bold:  No.  The economy was in the tank.  Many immigrants come here to better themselves and make money to help their families.

See comment below

(02-01-2019, 02:51 PM)Benton Wrote: For the most part, yes,it's a coincidence.

That's around the time when our economy tanked. Jobs are far and away the biggest reasons immigrants come here. No jobs, no point. By that point, most of the auto manufacturers that left had opened factories in Mexico (something that started in the 90s and continued through today).

Basically, immigration is becoming less and less of a problem because Americans allowed politicans and special interests to lower our economy enough that immigrants don't have the incentive to come here. 

Tanking economies didn't seem to slow illegals from entering in the 80's & 90's (in fact, they increased). So using history as my reference, your excuse doesn't seem as relevant as you would like for it to be.

Well I'll be. An article from Nov 1, 2003

https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Time-Recession

The economic downturn and the attacks of September 11th appear to have had no lasting impact on the pace of immigration. While there is some evidence that immigration may have slowed slightly in 2001, analysis of unpublished 2003 Census Bureau data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that new legal and illegal immigration remains at record-setting levels. In fact, immigration appears to be largely unconnected to the job market in the United States. Although unemployment has increased significantly overall and among the foreign-born, the pace of legal and illegal immigration continues to match that of the late 1990s. The total foreign-born population reached 33.5 million in March of this year, a net increase of one million since 2002 and the highest number ever recorded in American history.

The current economic slowdown represents a real-world test of the often-made argument that immigration is primarily driven by economic need in the United States. The fact that immigration has not slowed significantly since 2000, even though unemployment has increased significantly, indicates that immigration levels do not simply reflect demand for labor in this country. Rather, immigration is a complex process driven by a variety of factors, many of which have little to do with prevailing economic conditions in the United States. The idea that record levels of immigration in the 1990s were caused by a strong economy is a gross oversimplification and perhaps not even very helpful in understanding immigration. This does not mean that economic factors are entirely irrelevant. The higher standard of living of the United States in comparison to most sending countries certainly plays a central role in encouraging immigration. But a much higher standard of living exists even during a recession. For prospective immigrants, being unemployed or having to rely on the government or relatives in this country for support is still often better than life in the home country. Therefore, immigration is not a self-regulating process that rises and falls with the economy, nor should we expect it to be.

[Benton]

(02-01-2019, 03:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Tanking economies didn't seem to slow illegals from entering in the 80's & 90's (in fact, they increased). So using history as my reference, your excuse doesn't seem as relevant as you would like for it to be.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=72&pr.y=11&sy=1980&ey=2023&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=273&s=NGDP,PPPGDP,PPPPC,PCPIPCH,LUR,GGXWDG_NGDP&grp=0&a=

Their GDP grew as did their economy (mostly) through the 80s and 90s. As jobs migrated south, illegal (and legal) immigration has slowed proportionally. The late 90s/early 00s when our manufacturing moved there, look at the GDP. It moves from (in the billions) 816 in 90 to 6,600 in 00 to 13,000 in 2010. It's estimated to be 31,000 in 2023. 

That correlates pretty well with 


Their economy in the 80s and most of the 90s sucked. They came here. Their economy started getting better int he 2000s, their immigration peaked and then dropped off. As their economy improves (and ours worsens), that number will continue to go down.

It's not a wall. It's never been a wall. Just as a locked door doesn't stop someone from breaking into your house, a wall won't stop illegal entry into the US (most of which is through legal visas anyway). 

[Benton]

(02-01-2019, 03:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: They just need to sort out their drug issues and finish the fencing/wall.

Most of the drugs from Mexico and South America come in through legal checkpoints, according to the DEA.

[*bfine32*]

There is justification against the wall, but I challenge anyone on this board against this wall to look themselves in the mirror and say that the person requesting it does not play into their decision.

I've mentioned before the wall funding is about 0.1% of the budget. I've never seen congress or the American Public so "fiscally aware" on any project. So folks could do a favor and stop saying they are against it because it doesn't work and/or "too expensive" and honestly say why they are against it.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-01-2019, 04:23 PM)Benton Wrote: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=72&pr.y=11&sy=1980&ey=2023&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=273&s=NGDP,PPPGDP,PPPPC,PCPIPCH,LUR,GGXWDG_NGDP&grp=0&a=

Their GDP grew as did their economy (mostly) through the 80s and 90s. As jobs migrated south, illegal (and legal) immigration has slowed proportionally. The late 90s/early 00s when our manufacturing moved there, look at the GDP. It moves from (in the billions) 816 in 90 to 6,600 in 00 to 13,000 in 2010. It's estimated to be 31,000 in 2023. 

That correlates pretty well with 


Their economy in the 80s and most of the 90s sucked. They came here. Their economy started getting better int he 2000s, their immigration peaked and then dropped off. As their economy improves (and ours worsens), that number will continue to go down.

It's not a wall. It's never been a wall. Just as a locked door doesn't stop someone from breaking into your house, a wall won't stop illegal entry into the US (most of which is through legal visas anyway). 

OF course those from Mexico decreased, but not Central America. it's not about Mexican's, its about Illegal Immigrants no matter where they are from.
and again, those numbers start going down when the wall was built.

Look at the numbers from the 80's, 90's and the early 00's when we had recession. They continued to rise.

[Au165]

(02-01-2019, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There is justification against the wall, but I challenge anyone on this board against this wall to look themselves in the mirror and say that the person requesting it does not play into their decision.

I've mentioned before the wall funding is about 0.1% of the budget. I've never seen congress or the American Public so "fiscally aware" on any project. So folks could do a favor and stop saying they are against it because it doesn't work and/or "too expensive" and honestly say why they are against it.

Championing a shrine to oneself will tend to get people who hate that person riled up.

I have mentioned in another thread all the reasons a wall doesn't work as an effective tool to stop drugs or people. I used my experience in the security industry along with my background in working with DHS and Customs and Border Protection to explain why there are cheaper and more efficient things than a physical structure across the entire border. I'd call anyone who believes that a wall is the most important piece of security equipment on the southern border an idiot. The way he says it though I'm sure adds to the level to which I gag when he talks about it.

[BmorePat87]

(02-01-2019, 03:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The San Diego Wall is incomplete. Not only that, it has proven to have lowered the amount of illegal immigrants entering.

After they added hundreds of agents.

[GMDino]

(02-01-2019, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There is justification against the wall, but I challenge anyone on this board against this wall to look themselves in the mirror and say that the person requesting it does not play into their decision.

I've mentioned before the wall funding is about 0.1% of the budget. I've never seen congress or the American Public so "fiscally aware" on any project. So folks could do a favor and stop saying they are against it because it doesn't work and/or "too expensive" and honestly say why they are against it.

I looked and could hardly tear my eyes away from such a beautiful sight! 


Anyway you're almost kinda right...but for the wrong reason.  DJT's "plan" for the wall is not well thought out.  His "reasons" for the wall are (mostly) propaganda and outright lies.  And his inability to get the funding he NOW says is an emergency over the last two years is further proof that he cared less about an actual wall/structure than he cares about looking good and keeping a "promise" due to losses in the midterm elections and bad "press" from commentators on the right.

It's not just that Trump wants it...it's that he doesn't know what he wants, how it will be done, how it will work and what it will do or cost.

Like I said in the thread about withdrawing from the ME, if Trump appeared to be someone who had actual knowledge about the things he wants to do he would get a lot more support.  Simply spouting off talking points and demanding everyone do as he says isn't cutting it.  And that doesn't even take into account his history of being a conman willing to say anything for a buck.