Okay let's take your "articles" one at a time.
1. Cato Article
Arguments: Legal Obstacles; Practical Considerations; Efficacy; Unintended Consequences; Price Tag; Economic Downside.
is the argument that the land belongs to property owners along the border, and then there are all those "ecological" laws. The property rights is dealt with simply via "eminent domain." This is actually more of a "price tag" argument because all it involves is taking the property in exchange for "just compensation." That would be based on "fair market value" or the average price researched for similar property in the area. NOT a real problem as far as legal obstacles except in some local activist court. As for the environmental impact issues? Again, those can be dealt with just as they were with the existing 650+ miles of border barriers. Non-issue except in some activist court.
. This includes natural events which can damage or knock it down, and people can "climb over it, drive through it (referring to normal fencing)," and needs to be maintained. So what? Maintenance is simply budgeted like any other line item in an Appropriations Bill. IMO something our Congress has failed to properly do for the current walled areas in favor of social welfare spending, after voting to build them way back when. The "people will find some way anyway" argument has been dealt with in other threads.
. This is a spurious argument, pointing out problems with the current wall (being able to go around it, etc.) So the argument is that the current "walled area" is not effective because it is not stopping migrants...is actually an argument for improving the wall and extending it at least through areas which have been used to go around. Another argument is "no studies on how well it will work. :roll: That would be a big waste of time and money better spent on building something that does inhibit crossings.
. This argument is essentially building the wall we have simply caused people to find other ways in, i.e. getting a visitor visa and then simply staying. Another is that "coyotes" smuggling people increased thanks to being able to charge more when border enforcement and the current wall made it more difficult to cross. Both arguments can be dealt with by supporting ICE and Border Patrol agents with increased hires and investigation/arrest support.
Price Tag and Economic Downside
: The price tag is the cost to build and then maintain the wall. Yes it will cost money, money paid in salaries for American construction workers, and profiting all sorts of American businesses, i.e. a major jobs program which always serves to stimulate the economy in all sorts of ways. IMO one of the best ways to use Taxes. The Economic Downside argument is "who will pay for the wall if not Mexico" argument. We will, and yes this argument is really just part of the Price Tag argument. Mexico was never going to pay and I never thought they would. However, Trump's idea to use confiscated drug cartel funds which are even now being smuggled back and forth across the border would go a long way toward wall maintenance and Border Patrol costs. This is a perfect (and IMO the only valid) use of “asset forfeiture.”
2. Migration Information Source
MPI maintains a special commitment to work on immigration and integration policies in North America and Europe, where its two offices are located, but it also remains active around the world, and takes a global and comparative approach to migration issues when possible.
1. Does a little “history lesson” on border and walls.
2. It points out that walls that have “edges” allowing people to go around don’t work too well (surprise!); then discussed how this risks the lives of migrants as they seek to cross remote areas anyway.
3. Then it mentions how people are getting in anyway by (you guessed it) getting temporary visa’s and simply staying; and there are tunnels!! We did not know that! :roll:
3. Business Insider
1. Opinion piece on Trump’s Oval Office presentation.
2. There is no “crisis,” most are coming in legally and staying illegally.
3. Illegal crossing are dropping.
There is no need to address this article, these arguments have been addressed in other threads.
: IMO? Basically these are all weak arguments crying “it will cost too much to build and maintain; people will get upset over eminent domain and environmental issues; migrants will figure out ways to get in anyway, Mexico is not paying; even that it won’t work unless it does cover the entire border.
I am on record as preferring other methods to prevent illegal immigration without need for a complete "great wall of Trump." However, walls do work and a border wall will do the job it was built to do.