Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

[Joe Fan]

Ann Coulter's best line ever?

"They [immigrants] were brought in to vote for the Democrats. That's the real job immigrants are doing that Americans just won't do."​

 

[Joe Fan]

....We need some wage growth. One of the biggest issues in this country for the last two decades is a lack of it. Besides the problem it obviously causes for individuals and the economy generally, it also effectively ties the hands of the Federal Reserve. We need and want upward pressure on wages.....

We just saw a nice uptick in wage growth -- Private wages and salaries
Up 3.8% Y/Y from 2.9% in Sept
This is going to one of the primary movers for the entire economy

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Obama blocked the deportation of 550,000 illegal aliens
Or more than the population of Atlanta's

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...more-than-atlantas-population/article/2642694

 

[Seattle Husker]

Obama blocked the deportation of 550,000 illegal aliens
Or more than the population of Atlanta's

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...more-than-atlantas-population/article/2642694

Yet he also deported more than any other POTUS, at least that was the angle you were pitching in the Spring.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Seattle Husker]

The Trump admin has made it's first funding request for the border wall. The cost? $18 Billion dollars. This is the wall that Mexico will pay for originally but does anyone remember Trump's initial boast of $4B for the wall? He later increased his estimate to $6B-$7B. He's now up to 3x and that will net him 50% coverage. What a ******* boondoggle.

What does $18B buy?

The money would pay for 316 miles of new fencing and reinforce another 407 miles where barriers are already in place, according to cost estimates sent to senators Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. If the work was completed, more than half of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico would have a wall or other physical structure by 2027.

And how much would the 2000 mile border be covered? 970 miles per Breitbart.

 

[bystander]

I would unabashedly be a DACA supporter, meaning deferring deportation and establishing some meaningful path to citizenship that cannot be circumvented by political rhetoric or accusations of racism IF I knew the illegal immigration from Mexico was simultaneously shut-down. That is what the wall is really about. It may not be a literal answer but it is symbolic about the apparent refusal of the Left, La Raza, LULAC's and the immigrants from Mexico to abide by the law. That is the problem. We all know it. They refuse to accept our laws and use their support groups in the US to enable it.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I would unabashedly be a DACA supporter, meaning deferring deportation and establishing some meaningful path to citizenship that cannot be circumvented by political rhetoric or accusations of racism IF I knew the illegal immigration from Mexico was simultaneously shut-down. That is what the wall is really about. It may not be a literal answer but it is symbolic about the apparent refusal of the Left, La Raza, LULAC's and the immigrants from Mexico to abide by the law. That is the problem. We all know it. They refuse to accept our laws and use their support groups in the US to enable it.

A wall won't "shut down" illegal immigration. At best, it will limit it. As long as the economy and/or political climate is less stable in the country they are fleeing than it is here, they'll find ways to get here. The only way to shut down illegal immigration is to make it impossible for them to work here. That means putting honerous regulations on the businesses that some are now boasting that are growing due to lack of regulations (false BTW). As long as dubious industries can hire these immigrants they'll come, and they'll bring their families. So, we are now proposing to spend $18B (plus hundreds of millions in future maintenance) for a emotional blanket. This is a boondoggle towards which our dear POTUS lied over and over and over and over about the true cost to the American taxpayer.

I'll tell you what..I'll support this when DJT writes the first $9B check as a downpayment.

Keep in mind, that is JUST the wall. The total ask by CBP was for $33B. That doesn't include ICE or other agencies. ICE wants to add 10k agents. At least with the liberal boondoggle investments in green technology companies there has been some return on investment. There is NOTHING here.\

Your kids and my kids will be paying for this emotional blanket called a wall.

 

[Garmel]

The Trump admin has made it's first funding request for the border wall. The cost? $18 Billion dollars. This is the wall that Mexico will pay for originally but does anyone remember Trump's initial boast of $4B for the wall? He later increased his estimate to $6B-$7B. He's now up to 3x and that will net him 50% coverage. What a ******* boondoggle.

What does $18B buy?


And how much would the 2000 mile border be covered? 970 miles per Breitbart.

1.8 billion per year for 10 years is a bargain compared to the costs of illegal immigration. Every study(except for a few wacky liberal studies) has illegal immigration costing between 50 to 100 billion per year. Hell, even if we stop just 1/10th of the illegal immigration with this wall we'll be making out like a champ. If Trump keeps his word and Mexico ends up paying for it the deal becomes even better.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The only way to shut down illegal immigration is to make it impossible for them to work here. That means putting honerous regulations on the businesses that some are now boasting that are growing due to lack of regulations (false BTW). As long as dubious industries can hire these immigrants they'll come, and they'll bring their families.

This. Personally, I don't have a problem with a wall per se, but if we're going to have it, it needs to be part of a broader immigration reform that includes serious penalties that are not easy to evade for hiring illegal immigrants. If that's not done, then the wall isn't likely to make a big impact.

 

[iatrogenic]

A wall won't "shut down" illegal immigration. At best, it will limit it. As long as the economy and/or political climate is less stable in the country they are fleeing than it is here, they'll find ways to get here. The only way to shut down illegal immigration is to make it impossible for them to work here. That means putting honerous regulations on the businesses that some are now boasting that are growing due to lack of regulations (false BTW). As long as dubious industries can hire these immigrants they'll come, and they'll bring their families. So, we are now proposing to spend $18B (plus hundreds of millions in future maintenance) for a emotional blanket. This is a boondoggle towards which our dear POTUS lied over and over and over and over about the true cost to the American taxpayer.

I'll tell you what..I'll support this when DJT writes the first $9B check as a downpayment.

Keep in mind, that is JUST the wall. The total ask by CBP was for $33B. That doesn't include ICE or other agencies. ICE wants to add 10k agents. At least with the liberal boondoggle investments in green technology companies there has been some return on investment. There is NOTHING here.\

Your kids and my kids will be paying for this emotional blanket called a wall.

Not this.

Why do walls work in every other country but for some inexplicable reason will not work here? Because Democrats want votes and will lie at every turn to save their voting base.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why do walls work in every other country but for some inexplicable reason will not work here?

Most countries that have border walls are totalitarian and/or have relatively command economies. Starting a business and hiring illegal immigrant labor isn't a practical option. Furthermore, they're not particularly desirable places to live. They keep far more people in than out. For example, East Berlin had a border wall, but how often did you hear about West Berliners trying to cross illegally? Not often.

Again, there's nothing per se wrong with a wall, but there has to be an economic angle as well.

 

[bystander]

This, not this (Was, Not Was?)...

Stipulating that illegal immigration is against our national interest then you have to remove the incentive to migrate driven by immunity to the immigrants and the employers who hire them along with creating an active impediment to illegal migration in general. So you shore up the border as much as possible (being smart about the money but this is Washington), deport aggressively and come down hard on employers. ALL OF THAT must be firmly in place before any amnesty is provided under DACA. Otherwise, whoever is given amnesty will only green light another flood of innocent children who will later be used as political pawns.

 

[bystander]

Ann Coulter's best line ever?

"They [immigrants] were brought in to vote for the Democrats. That's the real job immigrants are doing that Americans just won't do."​

I've always felt the idea that they do jobs that Americans won't do to be irrelevant. We'll get along. We always do. People will find an alternative. It is not a good reason to allow illegal immigration and just creates noise where none is needed.

 

[iatrogenic]

Most countries that have border walls are totalitarian and/or have relatively command economies. Starting a business and hiring illegal immigrant labor isn't a practical option. Furthermore, they're not particularly desirable places to live. They keep far more people in than out. For example, East Berlin had a border wall, but how often did you hear about West Berliners trying to cross illegally? Not often.

Again, there's nothing per se wrong with a wall, but there has to be an economic angle as well.

Whether they keep people in or keep them out, the fact is they do work. If you want the government to abdicate its duty to control immigration and place that duty on private citizens, let's go ahead and cut those taxes some more.

Using the argument that our companies offer an incentive for illegal immigration, and therefore should assume the government's immigration tasks, is weak. It seems plausible that we should enforce the existing laws, and change the government when it fails to do so. I believe Trump (and Sessions) are in the process of making the proper changes, which is one reason that Trump was elected.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Whether they keep people in or keep them out, the fact is they do work.

But the point is that you're comparing apples to oranges by bringing up countries where walls (supposedly) work. Unlike the totalitarian regimes like East Germany and North Korea that you're wanting to emulate, we have an end-around the wall built into our laws. Specifically, we're a pretty open country that is generally willing to grant work and tourist visas. Keep in mind that about 40 percent of our illegal immigrants entered legally and simply overstayed their visas. What's the wall going to do about them? Not a damn thing.

If you want the government to abdicate its duty to control immigration and place that duty on private citizens, let's go ahead and cut those taxes some more.

That's straw man rhetoric. I never said or even suggested that the government should abdicate its duties. I said that if a wall is built, it should be part of a broader reform. I'm not referring to the politically charged and dishonest term "comprehensive immigration reform." I'm referring to genuine reform that puts the interests of the United States first. That reform should include things like greater enforcement inside the US, ending chain migration, adopting a merit-based system, and yes, going after those who hire illegal immigrants. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Using the argument that our companies offer an incentive for illegal immigration, and therefore should assume the government's immigration tasks, is weak.

It's not weak. If you're intentionally hiring illegal aliens or intentionally being ignorant about hiring illegal aliens, you're committing a crime and a bad apple. You're not innocent. When people intentionally purchase stolen goods, we don't let them off the hook, just because the government wasn't able to catch the original thief. We punish them for enabling and exploiting a criminal enterprise, and we should treat employers of illegal immigrants the same way.

It seems plausible that we should enforce the existing laws, and change the government when it fails to do so. I believe Trump (and Sessions) are in the process of making the proper changes, which is one reason that Trump was elected.

You do understand that one of those "existing laws" is prosecuting people who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal immigrants, right? What I suggest is modernizing E-Verify and making it easy for employers to use it. It's something that should take employers seconds to use. If they do use it, they should be able to rely on it. In other words, it should be a complete defense to any sort of civil or criminal prosecution for immigration violations as well as any claim of national origin discrimination. If they decline to use it or use it and then hire someone known to be illegal, then yes, they should assume the risk of that employee being illegal. Unless you're trying to break the law, that's a very reasonable expectation. Most employers do simple investigations on their employees anyway.

 

[iatrogenic]

But the point is that you're comparing apples to oranges by bringing up countries where walls (supposedly) work. Unlike the totalitarian regimes like East Germany and North Korea that you're wanting to emulate, we have an end-around the wall built into our laws. Specifically, we're a pretty open country that is generally willing to grant work and tourist visas. Keep in mind that about 40 percent of our illegal immigrants entered legally and simply overstayed their visas. What's the wall going to do about them? Not a damn thing.

And those "end arounds" were created by the government. Therefore, change the laws or enforcement mechanisms to prevent the recurrence of incidents. Those problems are a result of government failures, and the government needs to solve their problems, not private industry. A wall still stops 90%+ of future illegal immigration.

That's straw man rhetoric. I never said or even suggested that the government should abdicate its duties. I said that if a wall is built, it should be part of a broader reform. I'm not referring to the politically charged and dishonest term "comprehensive immigration reform." I'm referring to genuine reform that puts the interests of the United States first. That reform should include things like greater enforcement inside the US, ending chain migration, adopting a merit-based system, and yes, going after those who hire illegal immigrants. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

By putting the onus of enforcement on employers, the government IS abdicating its immigration duty to an extent. Greater enforcement of the laws by government and a merit-based system are better answers, not asking private citizens to do the government's job.

It's not weak. If you're intentionally hiring illegal aliens or intentionally being ignorant about hiring illegal aliens, you're committing a crime and a bad apple. You're not innocent. When people intentionally purchase stolen goods, we don't let them off the hook, just because the government wasn't able to catch the original thief. We punish them for enabling and exploiting a criminal enterprise, and we should treat employers of illegal immigrants the same way.

Not only has the government not caught the original thief, they have encouraged the thief to come to our country in many instances, especially under the Obama administration. Again, we circle around to the failure of government to do their job and subsequently requiring employers to solve the problem.

Yes, I am aware that employers are required to verify legal status. As you stated, employers that hire illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Verifying I-9s is part of the process, and fines of up to $16,000 per incident and six-months in jail can be levied against violators. Therefore, hasn't the government already placed a disincentive on employers? Aren't they already "going after" those that hire illegal immigrants? The problem isn't the employers, it's the government. They are not enforcing the laws governing original entry into the country and then asking employers to clean up their mess. Maybe it's because they don't have the resources to enforce the laws, but keep in mind the government also offers incentives that promote illegal immigration. Building the wall, based on the record of other walls that have been built, will stop 90%+ of the illegal immigration. That's an excellent start.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Keep in mind that about 40 percent of our illegal immigrants entered legally and simply overstayed their visas. What's the wall going to do about them? Not a damn thing.

+1

People see hispanic individuals and assume they scurried across an wall-less border when a huge percentage of them came across on tourist and work visas.

Again, eliminating the work opportunity will have the biggest impact on limiting illegal immigration. Dedicate half the money being asked for the wall on enforcing existing work laws with businesses and you'll have a much greater impact. The "Pro-business" Republican party will never do that though which demonstrates that they don't really care about immigration but it plays well to the base.

 

[iatrogenic]

+1

People see hispanic individuals and assume they scurried across an wall-less border when a huge percentage of them came across on tourist and work visas.

Again, eliminating the work opportunity will have the biggest impact on limiting illegal immigration. Dedicate half the money being asked for the wall on enforcing existing work laws with businesses and you'll have a much greater impact. The "Pro-business" Republican party will never do that though which demonstrates that they don't really care about immigration but it plays well to the base.

The good news is you will get to see how right you are after Trump builds the wall. Then you can crow all you want.

 

[Garmel]

Keep in mind that about 40 percent of our illegal immigrants entered legally and simply overstayed their visas. What's the wall going to do about them? Not a damn thing.

Recent stats show that illegals commit about 22% of the murders in the U.S.. These murders are not caused by illegals coming here looking for a better life but by organized crime coming from Mexico and Central/South America. MS-13 and the cartels are causing hell in this country and I'm pretty certain E-Verify won't stop them. We need the wall along with E-Verify to help alleviate the illegal alien problem although I know we can't stop it all.

 

[Mr. Deez]

And those "end arounds" were created by the government. Therefore, change the laws or enforcement mechanisms to prevent the recurrence of incidents. Those problems are a result of government failures, and the government needs to solve their problems, not private industry.

The end-arounds were created by the government with the full support and backing of the business community. We like having international tourists and like having the cheap labor that comes with work visas. It's about politics and demographics for Democrats. It's about money for Republicans.

Not only has the government not caught the original thief, they have encouraged the thief to come to our country in many instances, especially under the Obama administration.

The Obama Administration didn't try to fix the problem, but they sure as hell didn't start it. It was a major problem under at least his two predecessors, and neither gave a crap. It is a very bipartisan racket and failure, and again, the business community always played a major role in it.

Yes, I am aware that employers are required to verify legal status. As you stated, employers that hire illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Verifying I-9s is part of the process, and fines of up to $16,000 per incident and six-months in jail can be levied against violators. Therefore, hasn't the government already placed a disincentive on employers?

It's way too easy to get away with it. And what I'm suggesting is far less onerous of a burden than what's currently in place. However, if a business wants to hire illegal immigrant labor, it's much more difficult to get away with.

Building the wall, based on the record of other walls that have been built, will stop 90%+ of the illegal immigration. That's an excellent start.

I wouldn't be so sure. Do bear in mind that when looking at great success stories like the Berlin Wall, the wall itself wasn't what actually stopped the movement of people. It's not that hard to find a ladder. What really made the Berlin Wall and other walls effective was a massive force of armed border guards in concrete towers every several hundred meters with shoot to kill orders.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Recent stats show that illegals commit about 22% of the murders in the U.S.. These murders are not caused by illegals coming here looking for a better life but by organized crime coming from Mexico and Central/South America. MS-13 and the cartels are causing hell in this country and I'm pretty certain E-Verify won't stop them. We need the wall along with E-Verify to help alleviate the illegal alien problem although I know we can't stop it all.

Like I said, I don't have a per se problem with a wall. My issue is that it's not adequate.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

The DHS has put a new report out that shows 73% of US terrorism-related offenders over last 15 years were foreign-born

".... a new DHS study, which found U.S. federal courts convicted at least 549 people with international terrorism-related charges between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2016. Seventy-three percent of them were foreign-born, and 148 of those convicted had become naturalized U.S. citizens....."​

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirstjen-nielsen-dhs-secretary-terror-charges-report-us-citizens/

 

[Seattle Husker]

Dems need to be careful to not overplay their hand. It appears that John Kelly is one of the adults in the WH. Pissing on him by exposing internal conversations may not be the best strategy to keep him on the adult side.

 

[Joe Fan]

We just saw a nice uptick in wage growth -- Private wages and salaries. Up 3.8% Y/Y from 2.9% in Sept. This is going to one of the primary movers for the entire economy

Another tick up for wage growth. A key element to the big picture

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates personal income increased by $58.7 billion (0.4%) in December, fueled by a solid 0.5% gain in wages and salaries. Disposable personal income (DPI) increased 0.3%, or $48.0 billion, and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased by 0.4%, or $54.2 billion.

Real DPI increased 0.2% in December and Real PCE increased 0.3%. The PCE price index increased 0.1%. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 0.2%.​

 

[Garmel]

Another tick up for wage growth. A key element to the big picture

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates personal income increased by $58.7 billion (0.4%) in December, fueled by a solid 0.5% gain in wages and salaries. Disposable personal income (DPI) increased 0.3%, or $48.0 billion, and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased by 0.4%, or $54.2 billion.

Real DPI increased 0.2% in December and Real PCE increased 0.3%. The PCE price index increased 0.1%. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 0.2%.​

Thank you, Obama. *snort*

 

[Joe Fan]

Thank you, Obama. *snort*

 

[Seattle Husker]

Another tick up for wage growth. A key element to the big picture

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates personal income increased by $58.7 billion (0.4%) in December, fueled by a solid 0.5% gain in wages and salaries. Disposable personal income (DPI) increased 0.3%, or $48.0 billion, and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased by 0.4%, or $54.2 billion.

Real DPI increased 0.2% in December and Real PCE increased 0.3%. The PCE price index increased 0.1%. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 0.2%.​

Not sure what this has to do with the wall but this is a good thing. Even with the recovery since 2010 wages had been stagnant. I expected the $1.4 Trillion dollar stimulus bill that just passed to have a moderate impact on wage growth. This is much more important to the long term economic situation than the sugar high of $1k bonuses which don't come close to matching the lobbying money these same companies spent to achieve the tax reductions.