Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Horn6721, Jul 28, 2016.

  1. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    "It works" only because there are many other areas to go around it. If there was a continuous wall they'd be building tunnels under the Yuma section too.
  2. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Like Like x 3
  3. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    E Verify. Documented results. It really is quite a simple solution. Why is this president that proclaims he's going to fix it so reluctant to talk about the elephant in the room??
    "Just the rumor of E-Verify was enough to keep many migrant farm workers from traveling, which exacerbated labor shortages across the country, according to sources.

    If passed, mandatory E-Verify would require all U.S. employers to use the computerized E-Verify system to confirm their employees’ eligibility to work in the United States. That could be devastating for labor-intensive agriculture, since it is estimated that more than 70 percent of that segment’s work force is ineligible, according to the U.S. Apple Association (USApple).

    That “tremendous sense of unease” is the biggest problem right now, said Denise Donohue, executive director of the Michigan Apple Committee.

    Michigan’s apple growers got their crop picked this year, despite missing a few workers, but the future of their labor force seems to be up in the air, completely at the whim of the federal government – which seems to have no plan except mandatory E-Verify, Donohue said.

    “It’s incredibly frustrating.” The federal government isn’t the only problem. Nearly a dozen states have instituted E-Verify laws of their own, according to USApple.

    Georgia is a noteworthy case. The state passed a mandatory E-Verify bill May 13. Four days after passage, and two years before the program was supposed to be phased in, growers began reporting labor shortages. There were 30 percent to 50 percent no-shows on harvest crews, said Charles Hall, president of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Grower’s Association (GFVGA)."
  4. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Prisoners escape from prisons. Should we take down those prison walls because they are not 100% effective?
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    If prison walls were 2000+ miles long your analogy may have relevance. Care to equate a 2000+ mile border wall to a compound now? That absurd comparison is popular in alt-right circles. Next.
  6. mb227

    mb227 2,500+ Posts

    You continue moving the goalposts. You made the claim that the numbers were the way they were because of other options but that, even with a 'continuous wall,' they would go under.

    The reality is that walls do more to address issues than you give appropriate credit for.

    I am ALL FOR whatever properly secures the border just as I am all for double and triple fences on some prison facilities (while having no problem with the spray painted line that passed for a fence at some federal facilities in the past).
    • Like Like x 1
  7. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    I would be happy to equate a border wall with a compound. From Federal Prisons, there were 0.12 escapes per 1,000 prisoners for the period Jan -March 2017. From high security Fed facilities there were 0 escapes. Let's use the examples above for comparison. The Yuma wall reduced border crossings more than 90%. The 110 mile Hungarian wall cited above reduced illegal crossing from over 4,000 per day to 15, a 99.6% drop. The 124 mile Berlin wall caused the number of East Germans escaping to drop from 4,000,000 before the wall to about 5,000 (a couple hundred were shot after crossing the wall) during the next 22 years. In summary, long walls are less effective than the walls of an armed compound, yet surprisingly still very effective. The effectiveness of the walls is 90% to 99.6%. If we were to extrapolate the effectiveness of a 110 mile wall, or a 124 mile wall to a 2,000 mile wall with similar monitoring, I would expect to see a slight decrease in effectiveness.

    How did I do?
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Is he talking about the same wall that Mexico is going to be paying for? Why does Congress need to appropriate any $$$?
  10. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    except that history shows us that it will cost a lot more than their estimates and then there's the ongoing maintenance cost.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Is that supposed to be a conclusive reason not to build it?
  12. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    For me it is a substantial strike against it. And given that they aren't even talking about E-Verify, it looks like we ignoring the cause and treating a symptom. At a much, much, much, much higher price.

    If I've got two remedies available to me, I don't generally ignore the cheaper and less intrusive method to cure my ailment. the fact that they aren't talking about E-Verify just tells me that they aren't really serious, and that "amnesty" will be the Trump plan for all the people already on this side of the wall.
  13. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    What you wrote is true of every federal program in history
    Have you ever read what they about the federal income tax to get it passed?
    They lied about the definition of "income"
    They lied about the rate, and who it would apply to
    Look at what that became

    Anyway, there are many federal programs I would happily sacrifice to pay for this project. I agree with you that it would be better if no wall were needed. I actually love Mexico and have even lived ~3 years combined of my own life there. But unfortunately it's just something that we have to have if the country is going to survive
  14. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Chicago --

    “IT’S BEEN SHOCKING TO ME HOW MANY OF MY AFRICAN-AMERICAN CLIENTS VOTED FOR TRUMP—solely on the basis of immigration,” says Christopher Williams of the Workers’ Law Office. “When I talk to one of my clients, their stories are always the same. They go into a temp agency in the morning. The room starts out about two-thirds Latino, one-third black. By the end of the morning, when the assignments have been made, it’s 100 percent African-American.”
  15. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    we want the same issue cured I just believe the wall is a distant second when it comes to smart policy to enact to fix the problem. The wall will cost substantially more, it comes with a whole set of geography problems and it doesn't fix the 11MM illegals that are here already.

    So we get half the fix at 10 times the cost. Not smart in my opinion. I'm pretty sure the reason the GOP doesn't push the E-Verify is because don't want to upset the economic apple cart. they think taking away 11MM immigrants will have a profound impact on our economy.
    --no more cheap illegal labor. goods get more expensive to produce especially houses and food.
    --11MM people leaving the country is a huge purchasing dent. it will effect prices on almost everything.

    more expensive production and fewer people to purchase is scary but like most problems, the longer you put it off, the worse its going to be.

    I get it. It's a big lever to pull with large potential ramifications but if the GOP doesn't start requiring EVerify soon, we will miss the window again. E Verify is bound to have roll out issues just like OCare. The time to face those issues is when there is a body in power that is willing to ride it out. After a couple of years E Verify will be accepted and commonplace. systems will be improved and MOST IMPORTANTLY, as soon as it becomes the norm, 90% of the illegals will start to make plans to go back to wherever home is. It won't require raids, it won't require expensive airfare, etc. They'll voluntarily head back home.
  16. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    If we have learned anything about this issue over the last 30 years, it is that politicians never mean what they say about it. Never. Thus, we must have a wall to protect ourselves from our own politicians. This way, it wont matter when they go back on their word.

    I dont know where you are getting that figure. There are probably 11M in Texas and California combined, not counting the other 48. In any event, taking your number as correct, a wall will keep 11M turning into 33M

    I am not a huge fan of it either. I do not like the idea of the feds placing additional burdens on businesses (its already retarded enough). And, in this instance, you would be holding employers responsible for doing the feds' job. Why dont we just make the feds do the feds job instead?

    I strongly disagree with you here. When 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.

    Furthermore, the aliens will still be allowed to come back and pick fruit, drive cattle and so on. Only they will be here with permission and must return when the seasonal work is completed. They will have IDs of some sort and failure to comply will prevent them from entering again in the future. I also have the additional idea of charging them an entry fee, like going to Disney World. $50 per individual per season would pay for a chunk of the wall.

    Nonsense. OK, Western Union and Payday check cashers will suffer.
    One of the things you fail to consider and what people opposed to a wall/immigration control generally fail to think about is the benefits that will accrue due to lesser social spending. For example, all over the US, one of the largest local budget items is county hospitals. These costs will drop markedly, all over. This will mean more money in taxpayers' pockets, even yours.

    The raids are what will cause the voluntary removals. It has been done before (1950s) and can be done again
    And then a wall will keep them from coming back on the whim, even if an Obama-clone comes back into the White House
    • Like Like x 1
  17. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    I'm for everything that works. Build the wall first. That is a must! But once that is done then get the E-Verify. I also think we should give the money not given to the sanctuary city anymore to the cause of building the wall. I know that won't pay for it, but it would chap the A$$ of cities like SF knowing they contributed to help build the wall for not following the federal laws of our country.

    I have to laugh at SH that thinks since a wall won't keep out 100% of the Illegal Immigrants that it shouldn't be built. :rolleyes1: Once again, Iatrogenic had to b^t*h slap one of SH's theories that a wall wouldn't work. No matter how many stats showing facts that a wall would work at a very high percentage, SH just doesn't seem to comprehend.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    New Morning Consult/Politico poll
    Majority of Republican voters would support a Govt shutdown if it would result in funding for a wall

    I remember thinking during the primaries that Trump should make this point while debating. It would have been a bomb drop moment.
    I thought I wrote it down here, but quick search didnt find it
    Did find this --

  19. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Good point.
    Using that standard would eliminate 100% of the Govt
  20. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

  21. OUBubba

    OUBubba 2,500+ Posts

    We've got negative net migration over the last few years, even before 11/2016. So, it's surely lower now. Hell, we're going to make it more difficult to leave. :)

    Also, it would be even less necessary if we'd penalize employers for hiring non documented folks.
  22. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I predict at some point you may be correct. Fewer people will want to come here and US citizens will increasingly want to get the hell out of Dodge.
  23. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    Soooo...yesterday DHS awarded contracts for roughly $2 million on wall protypes just as window dressing for something DT never intends to build? :rolleyes1:

    Four companies were selected to build 30' x 30' prototypes. Each being paid $400-500k for their work. Funds being used are already appropriated in the 2017 budget.

    Trump Wall Moves Forward With Firms Tapped for Designs

    Trump caved on shutdown promises? No, it's called a once in a lifetime disaster with expected damages in the 100's of billions understandably delayed the timeline.

    But nice try by ZeroHedge, they aren't considered the haven for drama queen, conspiracy theorists for nothing.

    DT correctly understands the insane PR nightmare awaiting if he chooses to fight this battle now with far more pressing and crucial Harvey relief needs.

    If one cent was portrayed as skimmed from Harvey relief to go to the wall he'd be raked over the coals for months.

    So he pushes his ultimatum back three months to first take care of Americans in dire need of assistance. That's exactly the guy I voted for...America first.

    Securing dire relief funds for multiple 1000's of Americans even if it delays a recently tabbed top priority for three months?...that's "America first" behavior to the core.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2017
  24. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    If he pulls the trigger on dismantling DACA that will be an important step also. And then maybe I won't have to see the college tuition I'm paying over the next decade go up by 10% every year.
  25. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    The two have little to do with each other. Your tuition in Texas has gone up and will continue to go up because of the tuition "deregulation" (the most fraudulent name for a policy initiative I've ever heard in my life) passed back in 2003. Even if you want to isolate the impact of illegal immigrant children, DACA isn't the problem. Giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants back in 2001 was the problem. Don't blame Obama without blaming people like Rick Perry, Tom Craddick, David Dewhurst, Irma Rangel, Judith Zaffirini, and Geanie Morrison. In fact, the latter group had a MUCH bigger impact on tuition.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    • Like Like x 1
  27. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    I do (and did) blame that group(perry, et al) back when it was enacted but my point with DACA is that it's revocation along with other steps DT has taken on this front is sending a loud signal to illegal immigrants that we are no longer going to give them our benefits and resources just because they managed to get across the border. IMO, the hope of college for their kids is a very powerful lure for many of the illegals. While jobs may be the immediate lure (which we could combat with EVerify), the prospect of education and college for their kids is one also.

    It drives me crazy when outlets like NPR trot out the obligatory Hispanic last name that is going to UT (nursing program this time) to explain how DACA impacts her. They highlight her "depths of poverty" story, and while this may be indeed be a testament to her individual fortitude, it also highlights a compelling but often disregarded fact regarding the expenses the US taxpayer incurs. This young lady was the product of two migrant workers. Let's be generous and say her parents made $36K per year together. They had 4-5 kids. It costs about $12,000 per year for these kids to go to primary school. So on this family alone, the taxpayer was in the red to the tune of $50-60K. times 13 years...$500K'ish for each child. and that's just the education expense. We know that the parents didn't pay enough in taxes to afford this, so it was the taxpayers. And then there's the college expenses. The parents made $36,000 and had 7 mouths to feed. They sure as heck weren't putting money away for college. So again, US taxpayer paying at least some of the expenses for illegal immigrants to go to college.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Just do you know that this girl wasn't taking out loans or applied and received scholarships/fellowships? Why is the assumption that the taxpayer is footing her college? I'm just asking because it's a common trope on the alt-right boards that my own son's college (I started paying $27k/yr this month) is expensive because of illegal immigrants. I've yet to find any evidence of this.
  29. mchammer

    mchammer 5,000+ Posts

    You also could make the argument that past expenses should not impact future decisions. However, I understand the moral hazard involved which in my mind justifies the wall.
  30. OUBubba

    OUBubba 2,500+ Posts

    Reminds me of one of six responses to my Facebook query asking if it was bad kharma to be kind of enjoying the Maryland game, even though it was damaging the conference reputation [sorry]. My favorite: Randy white was a Dallas cowboy and a Maryland grad, so, no worries.

    I hold no illusion that you guys are not going to thoroughly enjoy Saturday night on TV from Columbus.

    I still say the wall will make it more difficult for them to leave.

Share This Page