The five billion dollar wall

[AK84]

@Ravenman

You can’t say that Trump didn’t think he could make Mexico pay for the wall. He literally was groveling and pleading for them to do so, because Trump’s reputation was at stake.

:eek:
Trump

1. Has a reputation…
2. That he cares about
3. Which normal people can relate to?

[septimus]

First of all, the $5 billion is just a down payment to begin work on a wall whose total construction cost is estimated at $70 billlion. More, actually, for the “steel slats” since the $70 billion estimate didn’t include the 25% Trump tariffs on steel.

As pointed out upthread treating NAFTA as a cooperative “everybody wins” deal, and thereby reducing Mexicans’ incentive to leave Mexico since they could work for the U.S. from Mexico, would reduce illegal immigration far more than a wall ever would. Instead, Thrumpo can think of trade agreements only from a selfish “America First” perspective.

@Martin_Hyde

Almost Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Is such sarcasm really necessary? A simple audio rendition should suffice for the reading-impaired.

@divemaster

Serious question…do we provide foreign aid to Mexico? (I assume we do). If we were supposed to give them, say $5b over the next 15 years, why can’t the U.S. just say “Nah, we need that money to build a wall.”

Please don’t buy into right-wing confusion about foreign aid. The biggest recipients in 2013 were countries the U.S. broke, Israel, and Israel’s enemies — Afghanistan $4.5 B, Israel $3.0 B, Egypt $1.6 B, Jordan $1.2, Palestine $1.0 B.

@UltraVires

I think you all are being just a bit literal here.
…But it is not like we should have taken that statement literally as everyone knows that it could not happen.

Trump supporters are so cute! They simultaneously hold

• “Trump is refreshing because he is so truthful. So very different from the Lie Machines that are CNN, NBC and Hillary Clinton.”
• “Why do you expect Trump’s statements to make sense or be truthful? That just shows you don’t understand the man’s greatness.”

[running_coach]

@AK84

The Pakistan-Afghanistan border wall currently under construction, has a cost estimate under a Billion USD. In much worse terrain.
Admittedly costs of work are lower,but not by that much.

From your inaccurately worded link. (fence, not a wall)

Pakistan-Afghanistan border fencing will be completed by December 2019

The pair of nine-foot wire fences, with a six-foot gap and topped with barbed wire runs along rugged terrain and snow-capped mountains as high as 12,000 feet.

That is a long way from being a 30 foot concrete wall.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@running_coach

From your inaccurately worded link. (fence, not a wall)

That is a long way from being a 30 foot concrete wall.

In another thread I commented that absolutely nothing that happens in the real world can be a lesson about why libertarianism wouldn’t work in libertopia.

In the same way, no real world border barrier can cast doubt on the beautiful, perfect, imaginary wall in the minds of Trump and his supporters.

[furryman]

@suranyi

A lot of people are asking him that. The problem is, his base isn’t asking him that, and he only listens to his base.

All his base are belong to him?

[lingyi]

Snopes.com has an article about someone creating a GoFundMe account to raised the $5B, that has already received several million in pledges.https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gofundme-border-wall/

The article goes on to explain the $5B is just the tip of the iceberg with estimated completion costs ranging for $21.6B to $70B.

This reminds me of the Honolulu Rail project which was estimated to cost $5.2B in 2011 and is now at $8.3B with estimates of a final cost as much as $13B. With completion dates being pushed further and further into the future and ridership estimates going down.

I’ve always joked that I’ll be dead before the rail ever transports it’s first passenger and the way things are going, that may be true!:mad:

Note: This monorail project isn’t going from island to island, it’s 20 miles from one side of the island of Oahu to the main business districts. A rush hour commute that can take 2+ hours via car or bus.

[HelenGawn]

@running_coach

From your inaccurately worded link. (fence, not a wall)

Pakistan-Afghanistan border fencing will be completed by December 2019

The pair of nine-foot wire fences, with a six-foot gap and topped with barbed wire runs along rugged terrain and snow-capped mountains as high as 12,000 feet.

That is a long way from being a 30 foot concrete wall.

And you can jump over it with a motorcycle.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@divemaster

Serious question…do we provide foreign aid to Mexico? (I assume we do). If we were supposed to give them, say $5b over the next 15 years, why can’t the U.S. just say “Nah, we need that money to build a wall.”

I’m not saying I *agree *to such an approach (I don’t), but it would seem to solve a number of problems. It “finds” $5b without raising taxes or shifting money from U.S. funding recipients. Plus Trump could point to how Mexico was indeed paying for the wall.

It seems so simple, I must be missing something obvious.

Mexico received US$88M of US foreign aid funds in FY2018.

The only thing obvious about this wall is that it is conceived to prop up Donald Trump’s fragile ego. It serves no other purpose and even if erected, would fail to stem the tide of immigrants who are escaping from situations so desperate and hopeless they are leaving behind everything they know and facing imprisonment and separation from their children just for some feeble hope of a better life.

“Wall” (without article, as described by Kristjen Nielson in full-on She-Hulk mode) is an exemplar for the Trump Administration policy in a nutshell; poorly conceived, wholly unworkable, with no thought toward either the practical details of implementation or long term impact, and existing purely as a salve that Trump can apply when he rambles so completely off topic that even Kellyanne Conway can’t pivot him back to reality.

“Wall” is the Maginot Line of American public policy toward immigration. Although in utility, it is more like those stupid bunkers that pimple the streets and hills of Albania. And if Enver Hoxha were still alive, I’m sure Trump would be venerating him as a great leader, because Trump is nothing if not a dedicated toady for tinpot dictators.

Stranger

[Alessan]

@HelenGawn

And you can jump over it with a motorcycle.

If by “you” you mean Steve McQueen.

[GreenWyvern]

“I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.” – Trump, Nov. 27 interview with The Washington Post

Now you know!

[cmkeller]

Wow, that sounds like it came right out of a Dilbert cartoon from the Pointy-Haired Boss.

[Ashtura]

@bizerta

Trump wants five billion dollars to pay for the wall. Why isn’t anyone saying, “Hey, Mr. President, you promised that Mexico would pay for the wall.”?

We know Trump does not have the authority to spend Mexico’s money, but why doesn’t anyone call him on his promise.

Why isn’t anyone? You mean like everyone besides the entire freakin internet? The fact that you seem to think this is an original thought is amusing.

[Czarcasm]

The newest Trumptweet reads as follows:

The Wall is different than the 25 Billion Dollars in Border Security. The complete Wall will be built with the Shutdown money plus funds already in hand. The reporting has been inaccurate on the point. The problem is, without the Wall, much of the rest of Dollars are wasted!

How can you support this idiot and not feel shame for yourself?

[Dandan]

I was just a bit disoriented when I clicked on the link and realized that I wasn’t getting a tour of the bunkers of Alabama.

Dan

[Ancient_Erudite]

@Ravenman

You’re glossing over the phone call between Trump and Pena Neto where Trump basically begged Mexico to pay for the wall, because otherwise “it would make me [Trump] look so bad and I [the lying dotard] have only been here a week.”

You can’t say that Trump didn’t think he could make Mexico pay for the wall. He literally was groveling and pleading for them to do so, because Trump’s reputation was at stake.

We all know how that’s turned out.

If Trump wanted to, he could make Mexico pay for it. They depend on us for 85% of their exports. Why not just put on a tariff of whatever percentage he might need until the wall is built and paid for?

The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $71.0 billion in 2017. A 3% tariff a year on that number for 2.5 years would yield over 5 billion dollars. A presidential executive order, though I don’t profess to know all of the technical rules should be able to do this. Problem solved, and there is nothing Mexico could say or do about it. They rely on us for business.

Mexicans are the ones exporting the drugs that ruin lives and human trafficking. And its undeniable a portion of the people entering the USA illegally are comment crimes.

If internal politics fail, this is an option that can work. Would consumers really notice a 3% tariff to the consumers? Hardly. We’ll the Democrats counter offer. They aren’t saying no we won’t help Trump fund it, they are crowing about the price tag. Maybe they are okay with say 2 billion, and the tariff would only need to be 1.5% for 2 years. Something like that. I get the sense something will be built.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So who exactly is paying; Mexico or indifferent American consumers?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Ancient_Erudite

If Trump wanted to, he could make Mexico pay for it. They depend on us for 85% of their exports. Why not just put on a tariff of whatever percentage he might need until the wall is built and paid for?

The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $71.0 billion in 2017. A 3% tariff a year on that number for 2.5 years would yield over 5 billion dollars. A presidential executive order, though I don’t profess to know all of the technical rules should be able to do this. Problem solved, and there is nothing Mexico could say or do about it. They rely on us for business.

Tariffs increase the cost of goods for consumers; they in no way “…make Mexico pay for it [Wall]”. And the problem is that many of those consumables, materials, and finished goods contribute to the American economy, creating jobs in distribution, retail, final assembly, et cetera. The notion that in applying a tariff you just get to peel off that additional percentage without any impact on the economy is blithely ignorant of the realities of macroeconomics; increasing the end purchaser cost means there will almost certainly be a reduction in sales, thus requiring higher tariffs to achieve the target goal, et cetera, ad ignoratum. This is not “problem solved”; it is “problem created.”

The notion that Mexico is and will always be dependant upon the United States as its primary trading partner is so patently false I’m not sure where to start addressing it. Mexico and the United States enjoy a special arrangement via NAFTA (and the associated NAAEC and NAALC). NAFTA essentially eliminated tariffs, and arbitrarily imposing tariffs on Mexico is invalidating NAFTA. Without that agreement and with the imposition of high tariffs, Mexico may well turn the manufacturing capability it has developed to serving some other burgeoning economic superpower—say, China—which would further weaken the United States and increase its vulnerability in not having privileged access to favorably priced imports. Tariffs are and have always been for one purpose—special government protection of ‘vulnerable’ (i.e. noncompetitive) industries.

@Ancient_Erudite

Mexicans are the ones exporting the drugs that ruin lives and human trafficking. And its undeniable a portion of the people entering the USA illegally are comment crimes.

Holy shit is that a completely counterfactual statement: Washington Post: Two charts demolish the notion that immigrants here illegally commit more crime

@Ancient_Erudite

If internal politics fail, this is an option that can work. Would consumers really notice a 3% tariff to the consumers? Hardly. We’ll the Democrats counter offer. They aren’t saying no we won’t help Trump fund it, they are crowing about the price tag. Maybe they are okay with say 2 billion, and the tariff would only need to be 1.5% for 2 years. Something like that. I get the sense something will be built.

I tell you what; let’s just have Customs and Border Protection hold a bake sale and use the proceeds to build an ‘stealth’ wall for the ten dollars and forty cents they raise. We can have a ribbon cutting ceremony complete with Humpity Trump bragging that his wall is the best, most beautiful wall ever, and is so stealthy that it cannot be seen even by the naked eye or most advanced radar, lidar, and infrared detection systems. Then we can rest assured that all of the evil-doers hoping to sneak across the border to take our shitty, low-paying jobs cleaning toilets and working in slaughterhouses will be prevented from entering, and then we can focus some legislative effort on actual immigration reform so that honest, hard-working people seeking the same American dream that every single politician in Congress and Donald Drumpf himself benefitted in that their ancestors could come to America to work and build. Or we can continue to listen to the Stephen Millers and Kirstjen Nielsons argue that immigration is some horrible scurge that will destroy society and that “we need ‘Wall’” as the only feasible solution as if we are living in a bad John Carpernter/Kurt Russell movie.

Stranger

[Ancient_Erudite]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

Tariffs increase the cost of goods for consumers; they in no way “…make Mexico pay for it [Wall]”. And the problem is that many of those consumables, materials, and finished goods contribute to the American economy, creating jobs in distribution, retail, final assembly, et cetera. The notion that in applying a tariff you just get to peel off that additional percentage without any impact on the economy is blithely ignorant of the realities of macroeconomics; increasing the end purchaser cost means there will almost certainly be a reduction in sales, thus requiring higher tariffs to achieve the target goal, et cetera, ad ignoratum. This is not “problem solved”; it is “problem created.”

The notion that Mexico is and will always be dependant upon the United States as its primary trading partner is so patently false I’m not sure where to start addressing it. Mexico and the United States enjoy a special arrangement via NAFTA (and the associated NAAEC and NAALC). NAFTA essentially eliminated tariffs, and arbitrarily imposing tariffs on Mexico is invalidating NAFTA. Without that agreement and with the imposition of high tariffs, Mexico may well turn the manufacturing capability it has developed to serving some other burgeoning economic superpower—say, China—which would further weaken the United States and increase its vulnerability in not having privileged access to favorably priced imports. Tariffs are and have always been for one purpose—special government protection of ‘vulnerable’ (i.e. noncompetitive) industries.

Holy shit is that a completely counterfactual statement: Washington Post: Two charts demolish the notion that immigrants here illegally commit more crime

I tell you what; let’s just have Customs and Border Protection hold a bake sale and use the proceeds to build an ‘stealth’ wall for the ten dollars and forty cents they raise. We can have a ribbon cutting ceremony complete with Humpity Trump bragging that his wall is the best, most beautiful wall ever, and is so stealthy that it cannot be seen even by the naked eye or most advanced radar, lidar, and infrared detection systems. Then we can rest assured that all of the evil-doers hoping to sneak across the border to take our shitty, low-paying jobs cleaning toilets and working in slaughterhouses will be prevented from entering, and then we can focus some legislative effort on actual immigration reform so that honest, hard-working people seeking the same American dream that every single politician in Congress and Donald Drumpf himself benefitted in that their ancestors could come to America to work and build. Or we can continue to listen to the Stephen Millers and Kirstjen Nielsons argue that immigration is some horrible scurge that will destroy society and that “we need ‘Wall’” as the only feasible solution as if we are living in a bad John Carpernter/Kurt Russell movie.

Stranger

Stranger,
1 ) Trump certainly could charge Mexicans an upfront fee for their goods to enter our country if he wanted to. 2% is a small amount for two years. I’d argue our social nets have to pay for way more than what it would cost to build a wall on drug rehab, and medical costs alone. Substance abuse costs our Nation over $600 billion annually, let’s be really conservative and say 20 billion of the amount is from hard core Mexcian Drugs. See the ROI? I’m not against work visas mind you.

2 ) My point that some of the people entering the USA illegally are commit crimes is a fact. And these crimes numbers in the tens of thousands. Better border security will lower this number. You can put a price on lives lost, rapes / human trafficking, etc… if you wish. Lately, an illegal immigrant cop killer has been in the news. Trump’s failure is not pointing the cameras on the USA victims as it would be very powerful. I’m not going to bother playing my website is better than yours on exactly how much crime is committed, or the rate of the crimes by the illegals as that can vary depending on the source. The Mexican murder rate is even higher than ours, about 5x higher. I’ll settle by its a major problem, and be correct.

3 ) 85% of Mexican exports go to the USA. That’s a very high number, they need us, and we give them millions in aid.

[GIGObuster]

@Ancient_Erudite

2 ) My point that some of the people entering the USA illegally are commit crimes is a fact. And these crimes numbers in the tens of thousands. Better border security will lower this number.

Yes, but a wall (the subject of this thread) is not,

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

To put it most simply, border barriers will never stop illegal immigration, because a wall or fence cannot apprehend crossers. The agents that Fox News spoke to called a wall “meaningless” without agents and technology to back it up. Mayor Michael Gomez of Douglas, Arizona, labeled the fence a failure in 2010, saying “they jump right over it.” Former Border Patrol spokesperson Mike Scioli has called the fence little more than “a speed bump in the desert.”

The Efficacy of a Wall

Trump speaks with absolute certainty of a wall’s ability to repel entries, yet the efficacy of the existing barriers has gone largely unstudied. The president is proposing a project likely to cost tens of billions of dollars and to suck up many other resources, and he is doing so without a single evaluation of the barrier. Obviously, any obstacle to passage will reduce entries at the margin. But would other options work better?

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) of the House Homeland Security Committee failed to obtain an answer to this exact question from the Obama administration. Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) concluded in 2013 that “it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence,” but he gave no indication of how he evaluated the costs and benefits. A 2016 Migration Policy Institute review of the impact of walls and fences around the world turned up no academic literature specifically on the deterrent effect of physical barriers relative to other technologies or strategies, and concluded somewhat vaguely that walls appear to be “relatively ineffective.”

Fences can have strong local effects, and the case for more fencing often relies completely on these regional outcomes. Take the San Diego border sector, probably the most commonly cited success story in this debate.

From 1990 to 1993, it replaced a “totally ineffective” fence with a taller, opaque landing mat fence along 14 miles of the border. This had little impact on the number of border crossers. “The primary fence, by itself, did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego,” the Congressional Research Service concluded.

[iiandyiiii]

@Ancient_Erudite

Stranger,
1 ) Trump certainly could charge Mexicans an upfront fee for their goods to enter our country if he wanted to. 2% is a small amount for two years. I’d argue our social nets have to pay for way more than what it would cost to build a wall on drug rehab, and medical costs alone. Substance abuse costs our Nation over $600 billion annually, let’s be really conservative and say 20 billion of the amount is from hard core Mexcian Drugs. See the ROI? I’m not against work visas mind you.

2 ) My point that some of the people entering the USA illegally are commit crimes is a fact. And these crimes numbers in the tens of thousands. Better border security will lower this number. You can put a price on lives lost, rapes / human trafficking, etc… if you wish. Lately, an illegal immigrant cop killer has been in the news. Trump’s failure is not pointing the cameras on the USA victims as it would be very powerful. I’m not going to bother playing my website is better than yours on exactly how much crime is committed, or the rate of the crimes by the illegals as that can vary depending on the source. The Mexican murder rate is even higher than ours, about 5x higher. I’ll settle by its a major problem, and be correct.

3 ) 85% of Mexican exports go to the USA. That’s a very high number, they need us, and we give them millions in aid.

Whether or not Trump could do this (I’m less than convinced), he hasn’t. He’s failed to get Mexico to pay for the wall, and is now trying to get American taxpayers to fund it. And he fails to realize that the Democrats in Congress have zero incentive to cooperate.