2. Most illegal immigrants are “overstayers.” They come to the US legally — for vacations, business, to study, etc. — and then STAY past their visas. By 2012, overstayers accounted for 58% (THE MAJORITY!) of all unauthorized immigrants. A wall is meaningless here!
This is true.
3. Walls have little impact on drugs being brought in to the US. According to the DEA, almost all drugs come in through legal points of entry,
hidden in secret containers and/or among legit goods in tractor-trailers. A wall will have little to no impact on the influx of drugs into our country.
Partially True, but if this was true all the way why do elaborate drug tunnels go under walls?https://drugabuse.com/featured/drug-trafficking-across-borders/
4. It’s environmentally impractical. Walls have a hard time making it through extreme weather. For example, in 2011, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of STEEL fencing. Torrential rains and raging waters do serious damage. Also, conservative sources generally do not address the environmental harm that walls create, but there is plenty of documentation available that show its potential for irreparable damage to both plant and animal life.
How can you believe that Pres. Trump cares about this issue? It is completely non relevant to him. You know what also causing environmental problems litter.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-immigration-usa-trash/migrant-trash-piles-up-at-remote-u-s-mexico-border-areas-idUSTRE80S0QB20120129
5. A wall would forces the U.S. government to take land from private citizens in eminent domain battles. Private citizens own much of the land slated for the wall. The costs of the government snatching private land — and the legal battles that would ensue — are incalculable.
Liberals acting like they care about government snatching land this is priceless. Thanks for the laugh, usually they never care about the government acting big and telling people what is good for them. But add Trump and all of the sudden their worried about the rights of the individual citizen. Priceless.
6. Border patrol agents don’t like concrete or steel walls because they block surveillance capabilities. In other words, they can’t mobilize correctly to meet challenges. So in many ways, a wall makes their job more difficult.
Except this is a false narrative in fact 89% said "wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Now I know that this not the entire border, But what facts are you basing your statement on. I have seen the Washington Post article and that article omits much.https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/
7. Border patrol agents say, “Walls are meaningless without agents and technology to back them up.” Are we prepared to pour countless billions annually — after the wall is built — to create a nearly 2,000 mile, militarized 24-hour surveillance border operation? Because according to patrol agents, that’s the only way a wall would work. Again, are we really, going to use East Germany, a brutal communist state, as our model here?
Everyone knows this but the combination of wall plus agents is better than agents no?
8. Where walls have been built, there was “no discernable impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens.” In other words, they came in elsewhere, primarily where natural barriers such as water or mountainous regions precluded a wall.
I have refuted this see above. Also, other countries use them to great effecthttps://allthatsinteresting.com/modern-border-walls-photos
I would present that many in this thread have a definite confirmation bias against any Pres. Trump does or says.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the construction of a wall is likely to slow or stop illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border, with 36% who say it’s Very Likely to work. Forty-five percent (45%) say a border wall is unlikely to slow or stop illegal immigration, including 27% who say it’s Not At All Likely to do so. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
I suppose you though Nancy and Chucks's rebuttal was effective but voters do not. Good luck with that outside the coastal areas of the USA.
. Trump’s $5 billion is a laughable drop in the bucket for what would ACTUALLY be needed. For example, according to the Cato Institute: An estimate for a border wall area that only covered 700 miles was originally 1.2 billion. How much did it REALLY cost? SEVEN BILLION. And that’s only for 700 miles. Whatever we think it’s going to cost, experience shows us we have to multiply it by more than 500%.
Are you admitting it is needed? JK. I agree.
0. According to MIT engineers, the wall would cost $31.2 billion. Homeland Security estimates it at $22 billion. Given the pattern of spending mentioned in number 10 (plus Murphy’s Law), that means we’re really talking about pouring endless billions into something that doesn’t even work. And, of course, we taxpayers will be footing the bill, not Mexico. Given all the drawbacks, is that REALLY the best use of our taxes?
Finally some facts, thank you.
So tax reparations, the GAO says this costs between 2 and 19 billion a year but no really knows.
GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments; (4) displacement costs and revenue estimates account for much of the variation in the estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens; (5) the estimates are difficult to assess because the studies do not always clearly explain the criteria used to determine which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in the estimates; and (6) the cost estimates could be improved by recognizing the difficulties inherent in collecting data on a hidden population, focusing on key characteristics of illegal aliens, and explaining more clearly which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in such estimates.https://www.gao.gov/products/hehs-95-133
Cost per Illegal Immigranthttps://cis.org/Camarota/Can-Wall-Pay-Itself-Update
To estimate the fiscal cost of illegal immigrants in our prior analysis we applied the average net fiscal impact (taxes paid minus costs) of immigrants by education from a NAS study to the education level of illegal border-crossers. Based on that analysis, we estimate that each crosser creates a net cost of $74,722 (taxes paid minus costs) during his or her lifetime, excluding costs for their U.S.-born children. The figures from the NAS study are in 2012 dollars; converting them to 2018 dollars would raise them to $82,191. This estimate means that for every 100,000 illegal immigrants prevented from crossing illegally, it would save taxpayers $8.2 billion over the illegal immigrants' lifetimes.
Illegal Crossings in the Future
The number of apprehensions fluctuates from year to year. The nearly 400,000 in 2018 was more than the 303,916 reported in 2017, but slightly less than the less than 408,870 in 2016. There is no way to know for certain what the level will be in the future; however, the lowest number in recent years was 2017, at more than 300,000. The scale of illegal migration along the southern border remains enormous. Illegal migration through the southern border is very likely to remain an attractive option for significant numbers of people throughout the world in the foreseeable future.
Cost of a Border Wall
The bill passed by the House of Representatives on December 20 contained $5 billion in wall funding. With this and the above numbers it is possible to determine if the wall can pay for itself. If the number of illegal crossing in 2018 was to continue for the next 10 years, the lifetime net fiscal drain from the 1.7 to two million new illegal immigrants would be $140 billion to $164 billion — $82,191 multiplied by the cost of each successful crosser. For a wall costing $5 billion to pay for itself, it would have to stop or deter 3 to 4 percent (about 60,000) of the expected successful illegal crossers over the next decade.
We can, of course, put different numbers into our model and see the results. If we assume that the number of successful illegal crossings in the next decade without a wall will be half (850,000 to one million) the 2018 level, and we further assume that the cost of each illegal crosser is half ($41,096) of what we have estimated, then the wall would have to stop or deter 12 to 14 percent of expected crossers in the next decade rather than the 3 to 4 percent. Alternatively, if the costs of illegal immigrants are higher than we have estimated and the level of future illegal crossings is also higher, then a wall would have to stop or deter a smaller share of than the 3 to 4 percent we report. But the range of reasonable assumptions indicates that a wall would not have to come close to being anywhere near 100 percent effective to pay for itself. This would be true even if a wall cost twice as much. A wall that is only partially effective could pay for itself by offsetting the cost that otherwise successful illegal crossers would create.
I posted the counter facts but face it no one really knows. Cost is the most important thing to me will it save the US money and I don't think any one knows. I have stopped a hate crime in Texas, where some red necks were beating a latino. I gave them a taste of their own medicine but was also injured but I saved him and held the field so to say.
The thing is about media is they all have an angle today. I also think a lot of the honesty of scholar at colleges are suspect nowadays too. Thanks for the information, at present it did not sway my mind but ridiculing walls as effective is intellectually dishonest.