Why Is Trump's Wall A Bad Thing?

[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 While there is some evidence that immigration may have slowed slightly in 2001, analysis of unpublished 2003 Census Bureau data by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that new legal and illegal immigration remains at record-setting levels.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.