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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm arguing with those who say a wall would be very successful.
Well, my answer is end the war on drugs, and spend the money instead on honest education, treatment, and rehabilitation.
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.
None of the so called alternatives have worked. What is your proposal?
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
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
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.
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?