Everyone That's Bitching About Spending 5 Big On Wall.....

[BmorePat87]

(12-22-2018, 01:00 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Here:

According to your link immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and that tax payers on average, whether legal residents or not, would be considered a "burden" if we looked at something as simplistic as "do they take more than they give in taxes" since we all do. Governments, as your link said, work on deficits in this area. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-22-2018, 12:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I didn't say it to diminish what they voted for, but that doesn't mean you can't view it as being diminishing. 

It's "nuanced" I suppose. But I read it as you stating Trump only demanding wall funding for personal gain and not to fulfill a campaign promise to folks that elected him. 

[BmorePat87]

(12-22-2018, 01:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It's "nuanced" I suppose. But I read it as you stating Trump only demanding wall funding for personal gain and not to fulfill a campaign promise to folks that elected him. 

I’d say it’s straight forward. While I may not think it diminishes it, you may. We hold different opinions. Mine based on my intent. Yours based on your interpretation as a 3rd party.

As for the latter, are personal gain and fulfilling a promise mutually exclusive? I’d say no, and I’ve gone as far as suggest the desire to fulfill the promise is based on a desire for personal gain and not a desire to benefit the nation.

[*bfine32*]

(12-22-2018, 01:46 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I’d say it’s straight forward. While I may not think it diminishes it, you may. We hold different opinions. Mine based on my intent. Yours based on your interpretation as a 3rd party.

As for the latter, are personal gain and fulfilling a promise mutually exclusive? I’d say no, and I’ve gone as far as suggest the desire to fulfill the promise is based on a desire for personal gain and not a desire to benefit the nation.

But you're not in charge of what benefits the nation,

Many folks would feel safer if we build the wall. No different than if we renamed Mt McKinley, Denali. 

[fredtoast]

(12-21-2018, 11:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He ran on border security and the promise of a wall. Is it so wrong to "appease" the base that voted you in? 

He ran on a promise of a wall paid for by Mexico.

The people who voted for him based on that promise should be pissed if that is not what they get.

How can they be appeased with a deal that plays them for fools.

[HarleyDog]

(12-22-2018, 03:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He ran on a promise of a wall paid for by Mexico.

The people who voted for him based on that promise should be pissed if that is not what they get.

How can they be appeased with a deal that plays them for fools.

I don’t think he actually said he would make Mexico pay for it until after he made it a promise, but that really don’t matter I guess. I doubt everyone would be upset. I would like a wall and really don’t care who pays for it in the end.

When Trump made that comment about Mexico paying for it, I kinda chuckled because I knew he had no way he could make them do it. Then I thought, well, yes there is. New trade deals would be a start. I mean it’s not like Mexico would write a check to the U.S. and write “border wall” in the memo. But I imagine many people pictured it going down like that.

[*bfine32*]

(12-22-2018, 03:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: He ran on a promise of a wall paid for by Mexico.

The people who voted for him based on that promise should be pissed if that is not what they get.

How can they be appeased with a deal that plays them for fools.

First off Pat was the one that used the term appease.

Secondly, I've mentioned many times how he can spin the Mexico paid for it. For instance those that used to cross and be on our dime must now remain in Mexico and be on their dime. Ect...

If his base feels they have been "played the fool" they can make their feeling known in less than 2 years. In the meantime I have 0 issue with him fighting to fulfill a campaign promise. Caving in on the wall might be a better example of how his base was "played for fools". 

[Belsnickel]

(12-22-2018, 01:00 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Here:

(12-22-2018, 01:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: According to your link immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and that tax payers on average, whether legal residents or not, would be considered a "burden" if we looked at something as simplistic as "do they take more than they give in taxes" since we all do. Governments, as your link said, work on deficits in this area. 

Not to mention the link isn't actually about illegal immigration, but legal immigration. That information is all about legal family migration, which is what Melania Trump used to bring her family here.

[BmorePat87]

(12-22-2018, 01:51 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But you're not in charge of what benefits the nation,

Many folks would feel safer if we build the wall. No different than if we renamed Mt McKinley, Denali. 

As members of a democratic society, we certainly are granted the power to decide what will benefit our nation, but it's true that I am not in a position to have any sort of unilateral control over what benefits our nation. Then again, no one in this country does.

I don't know what that has to do with me stating my opinions, though.



 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-21-2018, 11:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Show me the data for this. We have a whole thread devoted to the topic of how much illegal immigration actually costs the country. The long and short is that there has been no definitive answer as to whether illegal immigration is a net negative or positive for us. Undocumented immigrants aren't eligible for government services. They pay taxes in that they don't get back. With or without the wall you would still need spending to combat illegal immigration since so many undocumented immigrants don't cross the southern border but stay on expired visas, and since you still need manpower on the wall and around the border.

Jobs and helping local economies can be achieved through infrastructure spending around the country or the Green New Deal. Replacing crumbling roads and bridges or making us energy independent provide huge long term cost benefits.

Show me some data that says otherwise? Just cause someone says they are bigots doesn't always hold water.

Undocumented Immigrants, you mean Illegals aren't allowed to have Gov benefits, true, but their anchor babies are and that's the issue. The Illegals get to stay and collect benefits through their Anchor. Personally put the USC with a family member that is a Legal citizen and send the parents back to where they came from. One way to slow it down if they know the anchor baby isn't going to anchor them anymore.

Oh and there's always a way to spend the money that sounds better, but the reality is we can save more in the long run than your little projects cost.

(12-22-2018, 12:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pat already came back at this, and we discussed these numbers in the other thread. FAIR is legitimately tied to white supremacist organizations. Their data is extremely flawed. Even CATO called them out on it.

And I came right back at you with more numbers that were not based off of the FAIR report. Just admit it, you are on the Don't build a wall side and no number out there is going to make you change your mind cause you are gonna find a flaw and tell us how wrong the reports are with out providing any data that says otherwise. These numbers are astounding and growing annually, even if off by 50%.

Sheesh, I'm going to stop speaking English and claim no understand English and ask the US Gov for a monthly disability check.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-22-2018, 01:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: According to your link immigration has a net positive impact on the economy and that tax payers on average, whether legal residents or not, would be considered a "burden" if we looked at something as simplistic as "do they take more than they give in taxes" since we all do. Governments, as your link said, work on deficits in this area. 

No issue or doubt that LEGAL immigration is good or converting the Illegals to Legals. That is also good.

In fact, no one is really talking about getting rid of Illegals already here, what we want is to stem the flow of Illegals into the US.
2 ways that happens, 1 improve the systems of monitoring passports as legals enter and exit, this will really show us how many actually overstay their visas so we can narrow it down by country and make it harder for them to get visas.
2 then you'll be left with the wall down south and then have better security up North.

[GMDino]

(12-26-2018, 08:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No issue or doubt that LEGAL immigration is good or converting the Illegals to Legals. That is also good.

In fact, no one is really talking about getting rid of Illegals already here, what we want is to stem the flow of Illegals into the US.
2 ways that happens, 1 improve the systems of monitoring passports as legals enter and exit, this will really show us how many actually overstay their visas so we can narrow it down by country and make it harder for them to get visas.
2 then you'll be left with the wall down south and then have better security up North.

The POTUS is.

Same guy who wants a wall that most Americans do not want.

[Belsnickel]

(12-26-2018, 08:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Show me some data that says otherwise? Just cause someone says they are bigots doesn't always hold water.

Undocumented Immigrants, you mean Illegals aren't allowed to have Gov benefits, true, but their anchor babies are and that's the issue. The Illegals get to stay and collect benefits through their Anchor. Personally put the USC with a family member that is a Legal citizen and send the parents back to where they came from. One way to slow it down if they know the anchor baby isn't going to anchor them anymore.

Oh and there's always a way to spend the money that sounds better, but the reality is we can save more in the long run than your little projects cost.


And I came right back at you with more numbers that were not based off of the FAIR report. Just admit it, you are on the Don't build a wall side and no number out there is going to make you change your mind cause you are gonna find a flaw and tell us how wrong the reports are with out providing any data that says otherwise. These numbers are astounding and growing annually, even if off by 50%.

Sheesh, I'm going to stop speaking English and claim no understand English and ask the US Gov for a monthly disability check.

Your numbers were all pulled out of thin air. Provide me with a legitimate study that shows definitively that illegal immigration has a net negative impact on our economy. You've made the claim, it is your claim to defend.

[BmorePat87]

(12-26-2018, 08:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No issue or doubt that LEGAL immigration is good or converting the Illegals to Legals. That is also good.

In fact, no one is really talking about getting rid of Illegals already here, what we want is to stem the flow of Illegals into the US.
2 ways that happens, 1 improve the systems of monitoring passports as legals enter and exit, this will really show us how many actually overstay their visas so we can narrow it down by country and make it harder for them to get visas.
2 then you'll be left with the wall down south and then have better security up North.

I disagree with 2 being a cost effective solution, but 1 is absolutely an issue that gets overlooked. 

[GMDino]

[Dill]

(12-26-2018, 08:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Show me some data that says otherwise? Just cause someone says they are bigots doesn't always hold water.

Undocumented Immigrants, you mean Illegals aren't allowed to have Gov benefits, true, but their anchor babies are and that's the issue. The Illegals get to stay and collect benefits through their Anchor. Personally put the USC with a family member that is a Legal citizen and send the parents back to where they came from. One way to slow it down if they know the anchor baby isn't going to anchor them anymore.

That is already happening, isn't it?  Legal children are separated from illegal parents.

But it's not clear this works, is it?  Cruel without being effective.

https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-immigration/children-of-illegal-immigrants-what-happens-to-them/

In many cases, children who are born to undocumented parents are born in the US and have US citizenship by birthright. This means that while the parents can be deported, the children have every right to remain in the US. According to the ARC, 46 000 parents who had US citizen children were deported in the first six months of 2011 alone.

When and Whether Children Born in the U.S. Can Petition for Undocumented Parents
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/immigration/general-immigration/children-of-illegal-immigrants-fight-for-parents.html

Although many people assume that having a child in the U.S. (who is automatically a U.S. citizen) allows that parents to obtain lawful immigration status here, that is not the case. U.S. immigration law allows a U.S. citizen to petition for parents only upon turning 21. And in order to get through the financial-sponsorship aspects of the petition process, that child will need to be living in the U.S. and earning a high enough income to support his or her parents as well as any other household members.

An additional barrier arises in cases where the parents have been living unlawfully in the U.S. while waiting for their child to turn 21. They are "inadmissible" based on the length of their unlawful presence, and will likely have to remain outside the U.S. for ten years before applying for a green card with which to return. A waiver of unlawful presence is available in some cases, but will likely require a lawyer's help to obtain.

Where children are separated from the parents, they become in one form or another wards of the U.S. government--a direct cost to taxpayers, who must now care for them rather than wage-earning parents.

[GMDino]

[Au165]

I mean it's pretty obvious that the wall is important to trump as it will be his "shrine" a legacy of sorts. I have pointed out often that tunneling has been used by the cartel for years to easily move tons of drugs into the U.S. and that if the wall was as effective at stopping crossing then they'd start moving people in the tunnels because the price would adjust to reflect the difficulty, eventually resulting in the wall being pointless for it's stated use.

I hadn't thought about it until Christmas, but even aside from going under in the next five years you'll easily be able to go over. Drone technology is advancing rapidly and they already have drones that could move people up and over the wall. The amount of flight time is limited, however all one really needs is to be able to make it up 20 feet over 4 then back down 20. Currently it's not efficient or cost effective to do at scale, but for the "really bad guys" if they really wanted to get in they could. In the next five years however the technology will be cheap enough and efficient enough to move people over the wall in mass.

The reality is they should be using surveillance technology not a wall to secure the border. They make 7k cameras now that can cover miles depending on terrain. These cameras are used in conjunction with cloud computing to analyze the video and throw alarms. The cost to equip the whole border in these cameras would be far less than a wall and would be much more effective as it could be used for predictive policing. The cameras can be used to monitor activity across the border and the cloud computing will basically predict where and when people will cross.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-26-2018, 09:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your numbers were all pulled out of thin air. Provide me with a legitimate study that shows definitively that illegal immigration has a net negative impact on our economy. You've made the claim, it is your claim to defend.

Why bother?
Even if I gave you an unbiased report, you're still going to claim there is no clear answer one way or the other.

And the problem with so many of the reports out there, they can only estimate numbers based on an estimated number of Illegals in the US.
Also many POSTIVE report include money from LEGAL immigrants in their reports. Which again, LEGAL Immigrants aren't the problem and need to be removed from all equations.

from 2013 based on number from 2010. Before the FAIR report

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer

In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.
•Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
•In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
•At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
•In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.


For me personally, I would not offer Amnesty, I would offer a 5 yr Green Card, that they can renew so they can legally work in the US. But because they came here illegally, they are not qualified to ever become a USC. And if they commit a felony, they are rejected the next time they renew and subject to deportation. This would keep them from being eligible for many Gov services to keep the impact down.

[Belsnickel]

(12-27-2018, 06:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why bother?
Even if I gave you an unbiased report, you're still going to claim there is no clear answer one way or the other.

You'll never know until you provide an unbiased report that makes the claim definitively.