Because “a wall” : Korean DMZ :: housecat : Bengal tiger.
Because there are hungry people in this country and there shouldn’t be, and you want me to waste tax money on a wall? News flash: I don’t care enough! I care way more about ignorance, and I’d rather spend the money trying to get some of the more ignorant parts of this country up to snuff. What we need is a generation-wide values program in which we teach how important education is, and why it’s not OK to teach your kids that Jesus rode the dinosaurs and WHY it’s so important to have an educated, modern-thinking populace. We need to get rid of this idea that intelligence is somehow “Ivory Tower”.
I don’t have the time or energy for a wall or the money. There is so much more that needs to be done. If you don’t want to spend the money on any of that stuff above, maybe we could spend it on our failing infrastructure! Our walls and bridges and our highways.
But, NO! We think it’s a good idea to waste millions, probably billions on a stupid border wall. You really think Mexico is going to pay it?
To be clear, it’s not “let them” hike wages. If not for immigrants bidding down the price of labor, employers would have to raise wages for these jobs.
That’s all true. But on the flip side, the costs of social benefits would go down substantially. This includes both those going to immigrants themselves (they are eligible for some, though not nearly all, social welfare programs) and those going to unemployed and underemployed citizens.
That depends on your definition of “wall”
30 foot high wall going 30 feet underground with razor wire, guard posts every 100 feet manned by guards making $100,000 a year (to avoid bribery), and roaming patrols would be my definition of “wall” between borders of countries.
But interestingly, not a wall!
I see. But you might be comparing apples and oranges here. For one, it is not clear, how many people from North Korea are even *trying *to cross the border. The fact that the attempt is illegal and highly dangerous in their county of origin might deter most. For another, the border is not actually fortified by a wall. There is a 2.5 mile wide demilitarized zone. Whether or not there is a wall in parts of that DMZ is not entirely clear. Accounts vary.
If you want to demonstrate that a wall can work, you might do better pointing to the Berlin Wall. That wall was mostly effective in preventing illegal border crossings. However, it too needed to be guarded by armed men at all times. Many of those who tried to cross it were shot.
The question is, can a wall or fence effectively keep people from crossing, if you are not willing to shoot at those who try? I do not think it can - certainly not over the entire lenghth of the Mexican-US border.
I lack confidence in the math involved. There’s the cost of increased border security (which would be considerable and would certainly require the military to even approach Korean levels), the costs of increased food prices (leading to local producers failing when imported foods become cheaper - or will you block those at the border, too?), and these are offset by lowered entitlements and presumably reduced agricultural subsidies since there will be fewer agricultural producers?
I’m not sure there’s any way to make these numbers work out to a net gain.
Don’t forget that there would be less local tax income, too. Illegal workers may not pay income tax, but they certainly pay local sales taxes, as well as taxes on stuff like gas and cigarettes and certain services.
Well yeah that’s true. I just don’t think most people think of a stand-alone, unguarded 10 foot high concrete wall traversing the entire border between Mexico and the USA. Of course something like that would be ineffective. I just don’t think that is what people like Trump mean when they say “Build a wall”
You’re basically repeating the points already made by Hiker. I was responding to him. And I said “That’s all true. But on the flip side …”
I don’t see what you’re adding here.
I’m not sure either. My gut says net-net it’s a drain on the economy (when you include the effects on citizen employment and wages). But it’s a complex matter, and I could be wrong. My point here is just that it’s not a clear-cut matter, and you can’t just point to one side, as some people are fond of doing.
The problem with that is that those taxes go to pay for things, and those things are increased by having more people here. So the question is not the absolute dollar amount of taxes, but the ratio of taxes to services, and ISTM that this is not favorable for these immigrants, even before you get to social services. They generally don’t pay income taxes, pay less sales taxes (due to being frequently part of the underground cash-based economy, as well as having a higher percentage of their expenses being untaxed necessities) and lower RE taxes (due to overcrowded and substandard housing). Meanwhile they drive on the same roads, use the same trash pickups etc., and probably much higher utilization of police and courts (as with any low income population).
Maybe not. But the point is that in order to be effective a border fortification would have to be a real monster. You probably do not want to shoot the people trying to cross illegaly, so you either would have to make it physically impossible or you would have to deploy guards with sufficient manpower to detain everyone who crosses. Neither seems to be realistically doable.
I’m not endorsing the idea of a wall, which I’ve not thought a lot into, and sounds impractical at first glance.
But that said, ISTM that many of the comparisons people are making here are missing the point. Any such wall wouldn’t need to hermetically seal off the country and prevent every single illegal immigrant from crossing boarder. If it made crossing the boarder difficult and impractical to the point where only a few thousand people made it through a year, that would be a huge success.
It’s not comparable to a situation like the Berlin Wall, which was about preventing embarressment for the Communist regimes, and which needed to do a really really effective job. In this case it’s just about preventing the scale of the huge waves of immigration we’ve been having. A few thousand people crossing a year is fine.
With all that, it still looks impractical at first glance. I just think it needs to be considered with the proper context.
True, but “not effective” and “cost prohibitive” aren’t really the same thing. Not that I’m in favor of any sort of wall anyway.
It shouldn’t be illegal to move.
Okay, I ran down the math on this, but I probably got something wrong along the way because I was rushing a bit, so don’t be too hard:
1,989 miles of border with Mexico, which equals 10,501,920 feet/100 feet equals 105,019 guards getting payed 100k for a total yearly expenditure of 10.5 billion (10,501,920,000).
According to googe:
(36X78)/52 = 54 feet per cubic yard.
10,501,920 feet of fence X 60 feet high = 630,115,200 feet (lets assume 1 foot thick)/54 = 11,668,800 cubic yards X $80 = $933,504,000 in concrete.
I priced razor wire at $164 for 250 feet. (10,501,920/520)X164 = $3,312,144 in razor wire.
Cost for construction is beyond my powers of googling.
Go climb the ineffectual fence surrounding the White House and move into the Lincoln bedroom. Shouldn’t be illegal.
Seriously, what does your statement even mean?
Thanks for that. The good news is, some politician can just change it to 1 guard every 200 feet, and halve the budget for guards, thereby saving taxpayer money! Election in the bag! 'Merica is still safe!
I agree with you there. The “Trump wall” could serve to reduce the volume of illegal border crossings. Just not to zero. But let’s be clear: That is not really a new concept. The US are already employing numerous measures of border control which all serve to reduce illegal border crossings. Just not to zero. So the question of whether or not to build that wall really comes down to how much money you want to spend (and how much you want to alienate your neighbors) in order to achieve a higher reduction of illegal border crossings. It certainly could be done - but on a sheer cost/benefit basis I do not think it would be worth it.
Do you not understand the difference between trespassing and moving?
Nobody is asking to sleep in your bedroom. They’re asking for the right to rent or buy a home in this country just like the rest of us. I don’t see why that should be illegal. And the fact that it is unjustly illegal is the whole reason for this dumb wall conversation. Hence why “it shouldn’t be illegal to move” is my answer to the question posed in the OP.
Are we in fact having huge waves of immigration today? Most sources seem to point to net migration from Mexico, e.g., being close to zero over the past decade.