How we build the wall and get Mexico to pay for it

Great Debates
21

Obviously IMO the proposal isn’t workable, but it’s not so much unskilled take the jobs of skilled. That’s true in the underlying issue as well. The legitimate socio-economic concern about large scale low skilled immigration (illegal or even legal) is how it might it might lower the prospects for low skilled natives in an economic evolution (technology, trade) that’s already hard on them. It’s not the impact of low skilled immigration on high skilled natives.

Maybe it is all about ‘racism’ and just a coincidence that higher educated/skilled people tend to be more comfortable with lots of unskilled immigrants than people further down the scale, all else equal. Or maybe it’s partly based on who faces more competition for jobs and govt services. Populists claim it’s all for that reason, whose ox is being gored. Maybe it’s some of both, along with numerous other things. Such as ‘what does the other side want?’ ‘OK I’m against that and it’s evil’. Or group affinity. It’s not surprising Hispanics have a generally softer view of large scale low skilled immigration that’s mostly (though from all) from Latin America. Even among moderate/conservative type whites, IME Catholics are less likely to be as worked up by Latin American illegals than Protestants of similar socio-econ level, because it’s at least perceived the immigrants are mainly Catholic, though the % isn’t actually that overwhelming anymore even from Latin America.

But yeah, there would be an irony in the inevitable defense of the proposed program that ‘Americans don’t want those jobs’, building the wall, when the wall is being built in part because ‘Americans don’t want those jobs’ is rejected as a reason to have lots of unskilled immigrants.

22

This tells us all we need to know.

23

These are all fair questions, and for the record, I think building a wall along our border with Mexico is an incredibly stupid idea. I just happen to think that while the arguments over whether or not to even build the wall have been played out endlessly, considerably less attention has been given to the question of how one could get Mexico to pay for the wall if we are determined to have one built. That is the question that fascinates me, and my proposal to have actual Mexicans do the building, would in a way, take care of not only getting the wall built, but would also fulfill the ‘requirement’ that it be built by Mexico… or technically - its citizens in this scenario.

Once we buy into the premise that we will build a wall, and it will be paid for by Mexico, in one sense or another, then we can get into the ‘how’ of the question.

Is it voluntary? - No - not if you break the law by crossing into the country illegally. Because we are not a completely heartless country, you will be permitted one free deportation… but if you return, then you will ‘pay back’ the United States by serving on the wall construction crew.

What do you feed them? - Food would of course be provided. It does no one any good for the workers to suffer or die. Just as is the case for inmates in our penal system - three square meals a day. Might not be fancy, but it will provide nourishment and sustenance. (And yes, lots and lots of water for hydration.)

What(if anything) do you pay them? - They will be paid at least minimum wage, bearing in mind that part of their paycheck shall be deducted for the wall. Food and shelter are being provided for free, so there is no need for extra money as they would have no need to buy much of anything.

Where do you house them? - Makeshift temporary camps, as work on the wall progresses, the need to relocate would require any structure to be temporary in nature.

Who is going to train them? - Anyone skilled in this sort of construction, and that would include US citizens of course.

What do you tell the skilled citizens that don’t get the jobs that this project promised? Skilled workers are more than welcome to play their part. It is mainly the ‘grunt’ work that will use the labor of the illegal immigrant.

As this project would be a huge undertaking, I would be fine with service time on the wall be limited to ten years or so. They could then receive US citizenship. If the wall is still not completed or paid for, future wages could be garnished until it is paid for. This would, I suppose, technically mean that US citizens end up paying for the wall, but with ten years of relatively free labor, I think it would be enough to say that Mexico did its share to make the wall a reality.

24

So you’d be fine with only ten years of forced labor. For crossing a border twice. Geez.

25

Breaking the law, getting deported and told that if they return they will have to work on the wall construction project, and then they break the law again? I don’t see why it is wrong to punish a criminal who has such little respect for the law.

26

When the alternative is death (or a child’s death), whether due to starvation, lack of medical care, or violent crime, as is likely for at least some illegal immigrants, then yes, this would be egregiously morally wrong.

27

Some quick googling show me that typical labor costs are 50% of a construction budget. You proposal starts off with the US paying 50% of the cost for the wall immediately. Of the 50% that Mexico is “paying” for we still have to provide room and board for your prisoners.

A quick google also shows that on average it costs $13.70 to house and feed prisoners per day as the US average now that’s in a pre-built prison that isn’t in one of the worst places on earth for people doing manual labor I’d guess we’d have to pay at least $2 per hour in room and board not to mention water and guard fees. That’s at least 30% of what we’d be paying for unskilled labor.

I just realized I totally discounted all of the child care we’d be paying for for the prisoners and any crossers who aren’t capable of hard labor.

In the end, your best-case scenario has the US picking up 63% of the tab for a wall Mexico is “paying” for. On top of the social issues for your plan that seems like a terrible stretch to say anyone but the US is paying for the wall.

28

There is no struggle to build that wall, no one is even attempting it. Trump talks about it, but that’s where it ends. No struggle to see here.

ETA: What guizot said.

29

That’s the cost when you get to hire strong, competent, knowledgeable construction workers. This proposal involves putting a lot of people who have little physical strength and no background in construction on the project.

That’s the cost when the construction workers don’t need armed guards.

That’s the cost when you don’t have to beat workers to keep them working (and make no mistake–that’s how slavery works throughout history. Without the threat of torture, what’s to persuade your “Build the Wall” slaves to work?)

That’s the cost when your construction project and its labor force don’t inspire a civil war.

I don’t think this would end up being a cost-saving measure. Alzerian, if you’d be on the side of the slavers, you and I would stand on different sides during the no-fucking-around civil war this would cause.

30

What kind of quality of a wall would you expect from disenfranchised illegals being forced to build a wall that is in opposition to their own country and to keep the very same people building it out of where they’re trying to go to earn money? I am sure that most Mexicans love their country more than ours, because it’s theirs, but they are coming here for an opportunity to earn money that doesn’t exist on a level that it does here.

31

I don’t disagree I was just trying to put a best case scenario number on the OP’s idea. It seems to me if the best case is the US paying 63% of the wall cost (assuming no children or elderly and 0 need for skilled labor) and the worst case is civil war as you state then we can reasonably weight them against each other. I can’t imagine that the benefits out weight the risks in anyone’s mind and that includes people who are down with slavery.

32

One interesting stat: 29% of US active-duty military personnel are Hispanic or African American. After 2016, I don’t have a lot of faith my fellow white folks; but if it came to violent confrontation over enslaving Latinos to build a wall, I wouldn’t expect the military to be unified.

33

Not for convicted criminals, it isn’t. Maybe immoral, not unconstitutional. But do you really want to use convict labor? Wall would probably fall down in a year.

34

And you plan on paying for all of this how? :dubious:

(Seriously, is this some kind of though exercise to show how ridiculous Trump’s idea is, or a Devil’s advocate type of thing?)

35

That’s a really bad assumption. Alzarian, are you so fixated on building a wall that you are willing to greatly increase illegal immigration into the USA? This is a serious question.

Right now there is a net migration of Mexican illegals from the USA to Mexico, and Mexico is keeping a lid on illegal Central American immigration into the USA through the Programa Frontera Sur despite the increase in crime caused by the program.

Keep in mind that if you fuck with Mexico, it will pull out of the Programa Frontera Sur deal with USA, which will open up the floodgates for illegal Central Americans transiting Mexico to the USA. The deal is already an embuggerance for Mexico, which was quite happy letting the illegals transit rather than be arrested and deported from Mexico, for by going after the illegals, it has driven them underground, resulting in a significant increase in violent crime in Mexico.

Alzarian, read this article on illegal Mexican immigration into the USA, and then read this article on the Southern Frontier Program.

So what is your preference, Alzarian: a wall paid for by Mexico and an increase in illegal immigration, or Mexico not paying for a wall and illegal immigration decreasing?

36

As we speak, local assets are double-daring Mexican children that they can’t build this wall.

37

Not unconstitutional under the thirteenth amendment. Very likely unconstitutional under the eighth amendment.

38

I wrote this with the sort of thinking that makes Bricker twitch: “Well, it sure SOUNDS cruel and unusual to me!” What can I say? I like making him twitch.

But Weems v. United States might be relevant: a dude who falsified documents was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, which included hard labor. The Supreme Court found that this violated the eighth amendment.

I suspect this precedent would come into play in this horrific modern-day slavery proposal.

39

So, we pay them a wage, feed and house them, pay to train them and buy all the materials. Tell me again how they are paying for it?

Aside from all the moral and legal questions, it would seem you don’t even meet he basic premise that they are paying for it.

40

Just build the wall out of Hillary’s emails. Nobody can get over those.