The Border Wall Would Be Ineffective

[Yarn]

Summary: A wall would reduce illegal immigration by a fraction of a third. Over the course of many years, it would reduce the illegal immigrant population by a fraction of that fraction. Therefore, a wall would be ineffective.

Derivation:
Around 300,000 are apprehended by year crossing the border. The border control claims to catch 80%; others claim they only catch 50%. At most, that would imply that 150,000 get through. Every year, about 500,000 who came here legally become illegal immigrants by not leaving when they are scheduled to. In other words, two thirds of new illegal immigrants are a result of over stays. Additionally, over 11 million illegal immigrants are already here. A wall isn't going to make them leave; about 17x as many illegal immigrants are already as enter per year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/will-a-wall-be-effective/

Others agree with my math (for 2017):
"It also projected that overstays made up about two-thirds of the total number of people who became unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. that year."
https://www.politifact.com/californ...-true-visa-overstays-account-half-all-people/


You have a 2,000 mile long border; understaffed; it can and is tunneled under; people are smuggled through check points; they can go around the land border by sea.

Most existing barriers are in the west, and they have gradually expanded eastward. Concurrent to this, migration traffic has shifted eastward. Concurrent to this, proportionally speaking border crossings have become less common and over stays more common. In effect, walls have been effective at changing illegal immigration methods, but not at eliminating illegal immigration.

Note, i'm not saying it shouldn't be built. It is very important to Trump and his supporters and can be used to get substantive concessions on other issues, such as the dreamers. But it isn't a decisive fix the way that going after employers would be. In general, it is easier to control the behavior of those who have a lot to lose.

 

[Hedgology]

I don't think anyone made the argument that immigration levels will remain unchanged.

This entire thread is a complete strawman...

 

[Yarn]

I don't think anyone made the argument that immigration levels will remain unchanged.

This entire thread is a complete strawman...

I'm arguing with those who say a wall would be very successful.

 

[Hedgology]

I'm arguing with those who say a wall would be very successful.

The purpose of a wall is to act as a barrier to prevent foreign objects on the opposing side. As long as it does this, it will be successful.

There is very little argument to the convary that states an opposing purpose.

 

[Jetboogieman]

One thing I would say and I certainly could be wrong and this post, mainly pertains to drugs more than anything else.

But if "The Wall", in whatever iteration it possibly may come to be, does something to stem illegal immigration and drugs, all that will happen then in my view, is it will make drug and people trafficking more difficult, but also probably more expensive and so, more lucrative, making more criminals richer, the more money they get, the more they can destabilize and corrupt Mexico and Central American countries, the more people will flow to the US in search of a better life.

It's been shown, for decades now, the drug trade cannot be beaten, only a small percentage of drugs are intercepted and come in, every which way you can imagine, with many Americans themselves helping to do the smuggling.

People trafficking/migration may be a different story in all that and someone may say well, are you saying we shouldn't fight these things at all then?

No, that's not what I mean, but there are no easy solutions, there are no silver bullets that solve all the problems and sometimes things that seem a simple solution that seems like a good idea can have unintended consequences and on the issue of drugs, more than any other, unless Americans give up their appetite for illicit drugs, no wall, nothing, will stop it.

 

[Yarn]

The purpose of a wall is to act as a barrier to prevent foreign objects on the opposing side. As long as it does this, it will be successful.

There is very little argument to the convary that states an opposing purpose.

I could walk around on side walks and collect pennies off the concrete. Yes, technically i'd make money, but I wouldn't consider it an effective way of making money. Scope/scale matters.

 

[Hedgology]

I could walk around on side walks and collect pennies off the concrete. Yes, technically i'd make money, but I wouldn't consider it an effective way of making money. Scope/scale matters.

Your analogy fails to make an argument against the effectiveness of a wall.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Summary: A wall would reduce illegal immigration by a fraction of a third. Over the course of many years, it would reduce the illegal immigrant population by a fraction of that fraction. Therefore, a wall would be ineffective.

Derivation:
Around 300,000 are apprehended by year crossing the border. The border control claims to catch 80%; others claim they only catch 50%. At most, that would imply that 150,000 get through. Every year, about 500,000 who came here legally become illegal immigrants by not leaving when they are scheduled to. In other words, two thirds of new illegal immigrants are a result of over stays. Additionally, over 11 million illegal immigrants are already here. A wall isn't going to make them leave; about 17x as many illegal immigrants are already as enter per year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/will-a-wall-be-effective/

Others agree with my math (for 2017):
"It also projected that overstays made up about two-thirds of the total number of people who became unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. that year."
https://www.politifact.com/californ...-true-visa-overstays-account-half-all-people/


You have a 2,000 mile long border; understaffed; it can and is tunneled under; people are smuggled through check points; they can go around the land border by sea.

Most existing barriers are in the west, and they have gradually expanded eastward. Concurrent to this, migration traffic has shifted eastward. Concurrent to this, proportionally speaking border crossings have become less common and over stays more common. In effect, walls have been effective at changing illegal immigration methods, but not at eliminating illegal immigration.

Note, i'm not saying it shouldn't be built. It is very important to Trump and his supporters and can be used to get substantive concessions on other issues, such as the dreamers. But it isn't a decisive fix the way that going after employers would be. In general, it is easier to control the behavior of those who have a lot to lose.

If it works at all it will be more successful than not having it at all.

But you list millions who are currently here illegally. It would seem a forlorn hope to find and deport those who may have come from the south (apparently the vast majority judging by the border State demographic changes), when they could just walk back across with no barrier. Much easier for both them and illegal residents from elsewhere who, if shipped back overseas could just come back and enter in through the southern border too.

I personally would prefer strict immigration laws enforced rapidly and without exception, coupled with properly and clearly defining birthright citizenship as limited to the children of citizens or those who are legal alien residents themselves seeking naturalization.

But absent this, a wall would stem some of the tide coming in and inhibit the ability of those who are deported from returning.

 

[ttwtt78640]

When you use the argument that a wall is ineffective while simultaneously favoring sanctuary states/cities it just comes off as being ridiculous. I agree that trying to reduce illegal immigration or contraband inside the country without doing anything effective about the demand side then you are doomed to fail. That being said, should we remove the existing border barriers or the fence around the White House? Physical barriers are part of a security system - not the entire security system.

 

[Bullseye]

I sometimes get the idea that some people think that the wall would replace all other methods for protecting the border, e.g. no more patrols, or drones, or cameras. Not the case. The wall is an addition to border security, not the only thing. Walls work every where else as a security measure coupled with surveillance and patrol, why would they work on the border? AND understand it won't be 100% effective, just far more effective than the current set up.

 

[eohrnberger]

I sometimes get the idea that some people think that the wall would replace all other methods for protecting the border, e.g. no more patrols, or drones, or cameras. Not the case. The wall is an addition to border security, not the only thing. Walls work every where else as a security measure coupled with surveillance and patrol, why would they work on the border? AND understand it won't be 100% effective, just far more effective than the current set up.

Indeed.

I've not heard the claim from anyone that a physical border barrier wouldn't or shouldn't be properly supported with staffing and procedures that will make it effective.

 

[Lovebug]

I'm arguing with those who say a wall would be very successful.

None of the so called alternatives have worked. What is your proposal?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Well, my answer is end the war on drugs, and spend the money instead on honest education, treatment, and rehabilitation.

You won't get any argument from me there, if the point of the war on drugs was to end or severely curtail the drug trade, by now, if no one realized it failed, they're idiots and all it did in some cases was drive up the price of the product and make it even more lucrative to engage in and with the kind of money you can make and how short sighted people can be, they don't care about the consequences, it's 2019 and people still take up smoking.

However, it's hard, because you can't suddenly let the Escobars of the world legitimate and you can't suddenly have things like Cocaine and Heroine freely available (even though they largely already are but you know what I mean) given the damage they can cause.

So... People, throughout time have always turned to mind altering substances, it's simply not humanly possible to end it, but yeah, what you're saying here is a damned good start and probably the ONLY thing that can be done.

 

[Bullseye]

And let's not forget that thinks like eVerify stronger sanctions on employers should be part of the equation as well. Border security AND immigration reform have to be closely entwined. This is a complex, multidimensional problem where people have to think deeper than "If Trump is for it, I'm against it, and if Trump is against it I'm for it".

 

[Mycroft]

Summary: A wall would reduce illegal immigration by a fraction of a third. Over the course of many years, it would reduce the illegal immigrant population by a fraction of that fraction. Therefore, a wall would be ineffective.

Derivation:
Around 300,000 are apprehended by year crossing the border. The border control claims to catch 80%; others claim they only catch 50%. At most, that would imply that 150,000 get through. Every year, about 500,000 who came here legally become illegal immigrants by not leaving when they are scheduled to. In other words, two thirds of new illegal immigrants are a result of over stays. Additionally, over 11 million illegal immigrants are already here. A wall isn't going to make them leave; about 17x as many illegal immigrants are already as enter per year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/will-a-wall-be-effective/

Others agree with my math (for 2017):
"It also projected that overstays made up about two-thirds of the total number of people who became unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. that year."
https://www.politifact.com/californ...-true-visa-overstays-account-half-all-people/


You have a 2,000 mile long border; understaffed; it can and is tunneled under; people are smuggled through check points; they can go around the land border by sea.

Most existing barriers are in the west, and they have gradually expanded eastward. Concurrent to this, migration traffic has shifted eastward. Concurrent to this, proportionally speaking border crossings have become less common and over stays more common. In effect, walls have been effective at changing illegal immigration methods, but not at eliminating illegal immigration.

Note, i'm not saying it shouldn't be built. It is very important to Trump and his supporters and can be used to get substantive concessions on other issues, such as the dreamers. But it isn't a decisive fix the way that going after employers would be. In general, it is easier to control the behavior of those who have a lot to lose.

As others have said, the wall has never been touted as the total answer to the problem. But, it is the answer to a part of the problem...people illegally entering by crossing our southern border.

We certainly should aggressively address the visa overstay issue, as well as aggressive apprehension and deportation of illegal immigrants...no matter how they entered...and, of course, strictly enforcing...and even beefing up...existing employment laws. But only doing that...like only building a wall...won't provide for national security. We have to do it all.

But tell me...and be realistic, okay? If Congress won't build a wall, what makes you think they'll deal with those other issues?

 

[justabubba]

None of the so called alternatives have worked. What is your proposal?

neither have the walls
the illegals take the path of least resistance

if the parties were savvy, they would break this impasse by doing a total re-write of our immigration policies and practices, i.e., fix the damn problem

that re-write would/should include walls, and slatted fencing wherever such barriers would be the most logical/effective deterrent

but it should/must also include those enforcement provisions which will eliminate our nation being a jobs magnet. fine employers progressively for each undocumented employee. compensate those reporting such illegal hiring practices. make the e-verify system compulsory. prohibit any government assistance to those who are unable to show that they are documented resident aliens or citizens by birth or naturalization. without access to self sustaining employment and the government social safety net, the illegals who are here without means will have to self deport

expand the numbers of legal immigrants we accept - but require a means test to assure they will be able to be contributing members to American society rather than wards of the state. require the immigrants to possess the skill sets our economy needs as we have an overabundance of underskilled citizens to do the low-skill work

establish a national system to verify the eligibility of all who seek to vote

and do something for the dreamers. they did not enter our borders illegally of their own volition. effect a reasonable process they must follow to receive naturalized citizenship status

address all of the problems with the current system in a single bill and then vote on it up or down

 

[eohrnberger]

I'll let the following citations speak for themselves.

This is a 764 kilometer wall between Turkey and Syria, funded by none other than the European Union.
Turkey shares an 822 kilometer border with Syria, a country which has suffered bombardment from all angles since 2011, including several EU member states. The wall runs through the provinces of Sanliurfa, Gaziantep, Kilis, Hatay, Mardin and Sirnak and incorporates physical, electronic and advanced technology layers.

The physical layer includes modular concrete walls, patrol routes, manned and unmanned towers and passenger tracks.

While the EU and its loyal followers persistently preach that any form of borders are racist, many will be shocked to learn that the construction of this wall was largely funded by the 28-member state union.
The EU-funded wall that nobody wants to talk about

. . .

. . .

https://www.amren.com/news/2019/01/border-walls-work-2/

Ronna McDaniel
✔@GOPChairwoman
We've seen huge drops in illegal traffic in places we've built barriers w/ Mexico:
- San Diego (built 1992): Dropped 92%
- El Paso (built 1993): Dropped 95%
- Tucson (built 2000): Dropped 90%
- Yuma (built 2005): Dropped 95%
@realDonaldTrump is right to push for more security.
GOP Chairwoman Destroys All Opposition to the Border Wall with Devastating Statistics

This town is proof that Trump’s wall can work - Juarez

Apparently border walls do work. Your premise, "The Border Wall Would Be Ineffective" is dismissed.

 

[Moderate Right]

Summary: A wall would reduce illegal immigration by a fraction of a third. Over the course of many years, it would reduce the illegal immigrant population by a fraction of that fraction. Therefore, a wall would be ineffective.

Derivation:
Around 300,000 are apprehended by year crossing the border. The border control claims to catch 80%; others claim they only catch 50%. At most, that would imply that 150,000 get through. Every year, about 500,000 who came here legally become illegal immigrants by not leaving when they are scheduled to. In other words, two thirds of new illegal immigrants are a result of over stays. Additionally, over 11 million illegal immigrants are already here. A wall isn't going to make them leave; about 17x as many illegal immigrants are already as enter per year.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-mexico-wall/will-a-wall-be-effective/

Others agree with my math (for 2017):
"It also projected that overstays made up about two-thirds of the total number of people who became unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. that year."
https://www.politifact.com/californ...-true-visa-overstays-account-half-all-people/


You have a 2,000 mile long border; understaffed; it can and is tunneled under; people are smuggled through check points; they can go around the land border by sea.

Most existing barriers are in the west, and they have gradually expanded eastward. Concurrent to this, migration traffic has shifted eastward. Concurrent to this, proportionally speaking border crossings have become less common and over stays more common. In effect, walls have been effective at changing illegal immigration methods, but not at eliminating illegal immigration.

Note, i'm not saying it shouldn't be built. It is very important to Trump and his supporters and can be used to get substantive concessions on other issues, such as the dreamers. But it isn't a decisive fix the way that going after employers would be. In general, it is easier to control the behavior of those who have a lot to lose.

Glad you are on board with finding a way to not grant temp visas to those who would overstay their visa. We need to profile these people and not let them in in the first place. Thanks for the suggestion.