I don’t see how the objection to the wall can be framed in purely financial terms - although $5 billion sounds like a lot, it is tiny compared to the federal budget (indeed, the government was shut down for 32 days and the federal government normally spends $11 billion a day.)
If one argues on the basis of practicality, then there’s more substance to it - the wall would take over a decade to complete, would invite all sorts of vandalism and sabotage, land would have to be purchased from private owners, and it might be best to use drones and additional guards. But I suspect that…for many who oppose the wall, they don’t want wall “substitutes” such as additional guards - they want…an open, inviting, border which is physically passable. That would line up with the moral objection - that it is immoral to keep people out who want aid or a better life.
(There’s a vote option for people who don’t oppose the wall, too, of course)
Here’s how to complain in financial terms: it’s a waste of money. Bulding a wall is a poor investment. Almost any other investment in border security, if you’re determined to spend the money there, would be more useful and have better economic spinoffs. How many border patrol people, sensors and drones could you put in place for $5.7B? A lot.
And financially, what is the benefit? Why should not spending money require financial analysis but actually spending the money is free from that obligation? Ass backwards reasoning, Velocity. Entirely ass backwards.
$5 billion is not the total cost, that is just this year’s requested increment. In the original budget submission the administration only asked for $1.6 billion which is what the Senate passed before the shutdown. The administration can change its request but that is usually done in writing with supporting documents.
Financial, practical, and moral–but mainly moral. Our immigration policy should let more people come to our nation and become citizens, and our focus should be on streamlining and widening the stream. Build more Statues of Liberty.
This is the most enormous canard. You can get rid of illegal immigration by getting rid of the immigration, or by making it legal.
The laws against immigration are like 1920s laws against alcohol: they don’t work, and it’s a dumb idea anyway.
It’s a waste of money that would accomplish nothing good, and perhaps more importantly, Trump has made it into a symbol of his own (and his supporters’) bigotry and xenophobia. Putting up such a symbol would do very significant long-term damage to America, just as the Berlin Wall served as a symbol of tyranny and communism, focusing efforts against that tyranny that eventually were successful.
With a ladder, sure I can, and I’m not even in the demographic most likely to be those crossing the border illegally (men aged 20-45 or so).
Also remember that building a wall means also building a road behind it for the building/maintenance crews, and that road makes an excellent avenue for me to travel away from the wall on the northern side.
More importantly, most studies now show a majority of illegal immigrants now arriving in this country didn’t cross the border on the run anyway; they came in legally, on various sorts of visas, and just never bothered to leave when the visa expired. What is a wall going to do about them?
If you think the only point of stopping crime is adhering to the law, then perhaps there’s no logic to it. But if you think there’s a moral element – that only things that hurt people should be illegal – then it makes a lot of sense to make legal activities that are not harmful.
There’s a lot of nuance to this, of course. But in general, my understanding of the mainstream liberal argument is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are hard-working and decent people who would be wonderful American citizens, and would make America stronger and more prosperous were they legal residents or citizens, and thus we should make efforts to make most of those decent and hard-working folks Americans or legal residents.
People didn’t like the 55 mph speed limit and many violated it. Many were given tickets. Eventually, it was raised to 65 or higher. Less people violate it. Let’s just say, people want to drive 65 to 70 m.p.h., and if the law recognized that and allows that, less citations need to be issued.
Let’s also say some people want to immigrate to the United States. if the law recognizes that and allows that, they won’t be committing a crime.
Okay sure, lift a massive ladder dozens of miles in the heat of the desert. Few could do that. I’d get tired after a 1/8 of a mile, and I’m a big guy in decent shape. Also, good luck jumping off the top of the wall and landing safety on the other side.
Many Mexican’s die during the journey, and as I said with drone patrol, it won’t be that hard to spot a 16-foot ladder.
The amount of illegal aliens that crossed the border on foot is in the millions. A high wall will severely mitigate the amount of people who can successfully do it.
Its the layered approach for border security with the wall being the first line of defense. I would argue the limitation of illegal drugs alone, and what we spend on them for rehab and such is worth the price of the wall by itself.
Lindsay Graham was interviewed directly after Trump’s cave-in speech today, ironically calling for wall security yet citing that “a 9-month pregnant woman just scaled the wall and passed through this week–so did a group with a ladder.”
Yes, but by the speeding analogy, the reason for speed limits is to keep people safe. If a government raises the 55 mph speed limit to 80 mph and then says, “By doing so, we reduced speed-limit violations by 90%,” then technically, they’ve reduced crime, but the roads aren’t safer at all - indeed, they’re probably all the more dangerous now.
Same goes for those who advocate against illegal-immigration on the basis of “They take our jobs” or “We need fewer brown people in America” or “They’re criminals.” Now, most of those arguments are racist, BS, ill-founded or some combination of all three. But, if someone opposes Hispanics crossing the border into the United States, full stop, then the argument of “We got rid of illegal immigration by making illegal immigration legal!” holds zero water at all. To them, 10 million Hispanics crossing legally or illegally into America is the same - either way, it’s 10 million Hispanics crossing over.
