- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,163
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Given the combined implications and existentiality of following:
A. Customs and Border Patrol Budgets:
[*=1]2017 -- $13.9 billion
[*=1]2016 -- $13.2 billion
[*=1]2015 -- $13.1 billionB. Trump Administration estimate for building Trump's wall/barrier: ~$25 billion
[*=1]Materials:[*=1]Labor:
[*=1]$8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials)
[*=1]$3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials)[*=1]Land Acquisition:
[*=1]$12.3 billion
[*=1]$200 millionC. Trump assertion:
[*=1]"You know, the border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didn’t go down, it went up. But if it went down 1 percent, it was like this was a great thing. Down 78 percent....In fact, the southern border of Mexico, we did them a big favor -- believe me. They get very little traffic in there anymore, because they know they're not going to get through the border to the United States."
-- Donald Trump, July 28, 2017 (Transcript)
[*=1]Fact: There is no wall on Mexico's southern border with Guatemala.
[*=1]Fact: No new barriers have, since Trump's inauguration, been erected on the US-Mexico border.
[*=1]Legal immigrants/immigration --> ~$1.2 trillion
[*=1]Illegal immigrants/immigration --> ~$0.4 trillion ($400 billion)E. Behaviors, per Trump Admin. DHS, accounting for new illegal immigrants' presence in the US:
- [*=1]FY 2017 Visa Overstays --> 701,900
[*=1]FY 2017 illegal border crossing apprehensions --> 310,531
- [*=1]Canadians: ~93K
[*=1]Mexicans: ~29.5KF. Terrorists are not entering the US via the southern border:
G. Illegal drugs mostly enter the US at official ports of entry, not via unbarriered sections of the southern border.
- CIS -- Notes on the Trump Administration's Claim of 3,000-Plus Terrorist Apprehensions at U.S. Borders
- "The claim of 3,000 to 4,000 apprehensions of terrorist suspects is misleading and incorrect."
- CATO -- 45,000 “Special Interest Aliens” Caught Since 2007, But No U.S. Terrorist Attacks from Illegal Border Crossers
- DHS -- Potential Terrorist Threats: Border Security Challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean
- State -- Country Reports on Terrorism 2017
H. Human trafficking does not avail itself of southern border porosity between ports of entry.
Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.
given the combined implications and existentiality of following:
a. Customs and border patrol budgets:
[*=1]2017 -- $13.9 billion
[*=1]2016 -- $13.2 billion
[*=1]2015 -- $13.1 billionb. trump administration estimate for building trump's wall/barrier: ~$25 billion
[*=1]materials:[*=1]labor:
[*=1]$8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials)
[*=1]$3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials)[*=1]land acquisition:
[*=1]$12.3 billion
[*=1]$200 millionc. Trump assertion:
[*=1]"you know, the border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didn’t go down, it went up. But if it went down 1 percent, it was like this was a great thing. Down 78 percent....in fact, the southern border of mexico, we did them a big favor -- believe me. They get very little traffic in there anymore, because they know they're not going to get through the border to the united states."
-- donald trump, july 28, 2017 (transcript)
[*=1]fact: there is no wall on mexico's southern border with guatemala.
[*=1]fact: No new barriers have, since trump's inauguration, been erected on the us-mexico border.
[*=1]legal immigrants/immigration --> ~$1.2 trillion
[*=1]illegal immigrants/immigration --> ~$0.4 trillion ($400 billion)e. Behaviors, per trump admin. Dhs, accounting for new illegal immigrants' presence in the us:
- [*=1]fy 2017 visa overstays --> 701,900
[*=1]fy 2017 illegal border crossing apprehensions --> 310,531
- [*=1]canadians: ~93k
[*=1]mexicans: ~29.5kf. Terrorists are not entering the us via the southern border:
g. Illegal drugs mostly enter the us at official ports of entry, not via unbarriered sections of the southern border.
- cis -- notes on the trump administration's claim of 3,000-plus terrorist apprehensions at u.s. Borders
- "the claim of 3,000 to 4,000 apprehensions of terrorist suspects is misleading and incorrect."
- cato -- 45,000 “special interest aliens” caught since 2007, but no u.s. Terrorist attacks from illegal border crossers
- dhs -- potential terrorist threats: Border security challenges in latin america and the caribbean
- state -- country reports on terrorism 2017
h. Human trafficking does not avail itself of southern border porosity between ports of entry.
please, if you believe the us should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.
rapists....bad hombres...drugs....gangs...…..uh......clinton!
Off-topic:
Why did you change the case of the first words of the emboldened first/last sentence of the OP?
For some reason in quoting the OP, "Given" has become "given," and "Please" has become "please."
Given the combined implications and existentiality of following:
A. Customs and Border Patrol Budgets:
[*=1]2017 -- $13.9 billion
[*=1]2016 -- $13.2 billion
[*=1]2015 -- $13.1 billionB. Trump Administration estimate for building Trump's wall/barrier: ~$25 billion
[*=1]Materials:
[*=1]$8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials)
[*=1]$3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials)
[*=1]Labor:
[*=1]$12.3 billion
[*=1]Land Acquisition:
[*=1]$200 millionC. Trump assertion:
[*=1]"You know, the border is down 78 percent. Under past administrations, the border didn’t go down, it went up. But if it went down 1 percent, it was like this was a great thing. Down 78 percent....In fact, the southern border of Mexico, we did them a big favor -- believe me. They get very little traffic in there anymore, because they know they're not going to get through the border to the United States."
-- Donald Trump, July 28, 2017 (Transcript)
[*=1]Fact: There is no wall on Mexico's southern border with Guatemala.
[*=1]Fact: No new barriers have, since Trump's inauguration, been erected on the US-Mexico border.
[*=1]Legal immigrants/immigration --> ~$1.2 trillion
[*=1]Illegal immigrants/immigration --> ~$0.4 trillion ($400 billion)E. Behaviors, per Trump Admin. DHS, accounting for new illegal immigrants' presence in the US:
[*=1]FY 2017 Visa Overstays --> 701,900
[*=1]Canadians: ~93K
[*=1]Mexicans: ~29.5K
[*=1]FY 2017 illegal border crossing apprehensions --> 310,531F. Terrorists are not entering the US via the southern border:
G. Illegal drugs mostly enter the US at official ports of entry, not via unbarriered sections of the southern border.
- CIS -- Notes on the Trump Administration's Claim of 3,000-Plus Terrorist Apprehensions at U.S. Borders
- "The claim of 3,000 to 4,000 apprehensions of terrorist suspects is misleading and incorrect."
- CATO -- 45,000 “Special Interest Aliens” Caught Since 2007, But No U.S. Terrorist Attacks from Illegal Border Crossers
- DHS -- Potential Terrorist Threats: Border Security Challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean
- State -- Country Reports on Terrorism 2017
H. Human trafficking does not avail itself of southern border porosity between ports of entry.
Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.
Of the $1.6 trillion increase in GDP, 97.8 percent goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits; the remainder constitutes the “immigration surplus” — the benefit accruing to the native-born population, including both workers, owners of firms, and other users of the services provided by immigrants.
Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.
rapists....bad hombres...drugs....gangs...…..uh......clinton!
Off-topic:
Why did you change the case of the first words of the emboldened first/last sentence of the OP?
For some reason in quoting the OP, "Given" has become "given," and "Please" has become "please."
I changed nothing and I take it sarcasm is not your strong point.
Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.
... a December 2016 study published in the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. They show that US saw a 118% increase in its immigrant population (documented and undocumented) from 1980 through 2016.
Yet during this same period, the rate of violent crime — homicides, rapes, robberies, and assaults, according to the FBI — fell by 36% to about 386 incidents per 100,000 residents.
Shayanne Gal/Business Insider
A more recent peer-reviewed study, published in March 2017 by The Sociological Quarterly, compared all forms of immigration and violence in rural versus urban communities from 1990 through 2010. The number of foreign-born residents — accounting for many other factors — appeared to reduce violent crime rates in rural areas, though not at statistically significant levels. But in cities, immigration was significantly associated with reduced rates of violent crimes.
There's also a study published in February by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, which further rejects the idea that illegal immigration is tied to increases in rates of violent crime. The study looked at conviction data in Texas — the state with the second-largest population of foreign-born residents — for native-born, unauthorized immigrant, and legal immigrant residents. The research found that native-born residents were most likely to commit and be convicted of crimes, while unauthorized immigrants saw a conviction rate that was about 50% lower. Legal immigrants appeared to be the most law-abiding, with 86% fewer convictions than native-born Texans.
There's also a Criminology journal study from March that examined states' reported rates of violent crime and illegal immigration. From 1990 through 2014, that data found a negative correlation — meaning that the more a population was made up of unauthorized immigrants, the lower the violent crime rate seemed to be.
[*=1]Legal immigrants/immigration --> ~$1.2 trillion
[*=1]Illegal immigrants/immigration --> ~$0.4 trillion ($400 billion)
Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.
I got the sarcasm in your post. I don't have something to say about it. Why would I? It (1) tacitly illustrates one of the challenges wall-supporters have not and apparently cannot overcome, one that my OP expressly bids them to attempt to best and (2) alludes to the non-sequitur lines they typically proffer.
Blue:
Well, look at your quoting of the OP and look at the OP and you'll see the changes I noted. Something made that happen. I asked you hoping you'd know what made it happen.
First of all, it should be established that the money Trump is trying to get out of Congress isn't solely for building a wall. It will also be spent on other items important to border security, such as more agents, more detection equipment, more immigration courts, etc. These increases will increase security all across the border...including ports of entry.
Now, I want to direct your attention to the link you provided and the statements from that Harvard study...which, btw, is six years old...about net economic contribution by illegal aliens. It gives a figure, by their own account an estimate, of $400 Billion. That's all fine and dandy, but that study doesn't mention any of the costs to our government, to the taxpayers or to individual citizens. (except insofar as illegal aliens take jobs away from citizens) If one accepts the President's numbers, illegal drugs cost our country $500 Billion. This figure, alone, negates any economic contribution we might get from illegal aliens. So...if we were to spend, say, $25 Billion on border security...which would build a wall AND increase border security across the board...we could get close to saving $75 Billion ($100B - $25B). If we then used that savings to increase border security even more, we would save the American citizen...and taxpayer...even more.
So...even disregarding the bulk of your thesis...with just a consideration of the affects of illegal drug smuggling...it is obvious that increasing border security is worth the money...not to mention the lives of American citizens that would be saved.
From your own link regarding the immigration GDP benefits (https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/popular/CIS2013.pdf) :
Of the $1.6 trillion increase in GDP, 97.8 percent goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits; the remainder constitutes the “immigration surplus” — the benefit accruing to the native-born population, including both workers, owners of firms, and other users of the services provided by immigrants.
and to erase the rest through lowered wages to US citizens:
Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.
Before you try to tell us what they contribute you shouldn't top out the highest number without deriving what the net benefit becomes.
PS and those wage losses? Those are permanent. Meaning there is cumulative effect on downward wage pressure.
You forgot
I. Trump's misrepresentation of illegal immigrants as criminal monsters that rape and kill our women, when on average they are much more peaceful than native born Americans
I have no idea as all I did was click "Reply with quote".
If the addition of "undocumented" foreign nationals with HS or less education who cannot speak, read or write English and will work for very low pay in unsafe/unsanitary conditions is a net benefit to society then why do we spend so much on education and "safety net" programs? We could easily create our own underclass (for the alleged economic benefit?) and let them work and live without benefit "safety net" programs or the ability to report labor law violations.
From your own link regarding the immigration GDP benefits (https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/popular/CIS2013.pdf) :
and to erase the rest through lowered wages to US citizens:
Before you try to tell us what they contribute you shouldn't top out the highest number without deriving what the net benefit becomes.
PS and those wage losses? Those are permanent. Meaning there is cumulative effect on downward wage pressure.
your assessment is so full of large holes I could drive a tractor-trailer packed full of 1000s of killos of weed right through it.
Your first incorrect assessment is to believe that their exists an brake-down accounting or plan that accounts for how money wants for "border security" is divvy up.
Mexico brings in the drugs...it is Americas that suck them up.
There is no job that is designated an American job. Not even in the US. I had to compete with designers from outside the US. Who in the federal government has assured you employment? Did your government job when you turned 18?
First of all, it should be established that the money Trump is trying to get out of Congress isn't solely for building a wall. It will also be spent on other items important to border security, such as more agents, more detection equipment, more immigration courts, etc. These increases will increase security all across the border...including ports of entry.
Now, I want to direct your attention to the link you provided and the statements from that Harvard study...which, btw, is six years old...about net economic contribution by illegal aliens. It gives a figure, by their own account an estimate, of $400 Billion. That's all fine and dandy, but that study doesn't mention any of the costs to our government, to the taxpayers or to individual citizens. (except insofar as illegal aliens take jobs away from citizens) If one accepts the President's numbers, illegal drugs cost our country $500 Billion. This figure, alone, negates any economic contribution we might get from illegal aliens. So...if we were to spend, say, $25 Billion on border security...which would build a wall AND increase border security across the board...we could get close to saving $75 Billion ($100B - $25B). If we then used that savings to increase border security even more, we would save the American citizen...and taxpayer...even more.
So...even disregarding the bulk of your thesis...with just a consideration of the affects of illegal drug smuggling...it is obvious that increasing border security is worth the money...not to mention the lives of American citizens that would be saved.
[B
Please, if you believe the US should spend taxpayer money to build a wall on the southern border, provide a sound/cogent case illustrating the preponderance of pecuniary benefits over pecuniary costs of doing so.
Good, let Donald's administration make an actual formal proposal to Congress for what he wants Appropriations for instead of shoving them across a WH table at Hill Leadership or trying to bootstrap them to a CR all against the backdrop of a Shutdown that Trump owns. Coercion and subversion of process are not governance. They are Tyranny.
He has made proposals. Guess what...Chuck and Nancy wouldn't even look at them.
You seem to think Trump hasn't made any effort to make a deal...to compromise. He has. The refusal to make a deal has all come from those two Dems.
He has made proposals. Guess what...Chuck and Nancy wouldn't even look at them.
You seem to think Trump hasn't made any effort to make a deal...to compromise. He has. The refusal to make a deal has all come from those two Dems.
Nope...never did. He never made an effort through the Appropriations process which is what he needed to do here. The only "Bill" that was hustled up late was the July 2018 Bill that Ryan actually prevented from coming to the floor because:
a) he could not even get the votes from his House Majority for it and he knew it
b) it was not supported by an effort by ANYBODY to House Appropriations to justify it, rationalize it or describe any specifics of it
c) points "a" and b" are part and parcel of there being no actual effort to get that Bill passed and Ryan knew it which is why he slipped it out of the voting calendar before it ever came to the floor.
The absolute only "effort" Trump has made is no effort at all. He has tried to bootstrap what are actually New Appropriations onto CR's which subverts that actual process of gaining Appropriations. In this last round of attempting to bootstrap onto CR's he got it onto the House version of a CR and it was DOA in the Senate because in fact, new Appropriations should not be bootstrapped onto CR's. Trump got away with it in waining moments of the 115th House. But it was never going anywhere in the Senate.
Now, Trump is trying to both subvert the Appropriations process and coerce the result he wants via Gov shutdown. Sorry...that is not government. That is not an effort. That is tyranny. Trump is not King though he exhibits tendencies of the worst of dimwitted, inbred, ignorant as the day is long, European Royalty up through the 20th Century.
As for Chuck and Nancy....They are not going to succumb to an effort to subvert process especially via coercion. If Trump actually wanted his Wall he would have started an actual Appropriation process for it early in the 115th Congress. Instead he chose retribution in the form of time he wasted trying to overturn the ACA and then went on to his tax cut. By the way, the Obama administration knew enough about process to field multiple legislative support efforts at the same time.
The next time you boys want to destroy government and then have the audacity to ask what is left of it for something you want, choose a champion that knows how to do more than flap his gums incoherently.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?