Should the wall be build to keep away immigrants?

piloteer

@CYDdharta

What we have here is a failure to communicate. The dollar amount of the tax burden of illegal immigrants from the years 1990 to 2016 is not a changeable number. It already happened. The purpose of the Yale study was to show that the heritage foundations study grossly underestimated the immigrant population. The Yale study did not count immigrant households, it counted individual immigrants. The dollar amount of the tax burden didn't change, the population size did. The findings of the Yale study have shown that illegal immigrants are not a burden on taxpayers, they actually put more money into the tax system than they take out. The findings have also shown that illegal immigrants are less dangerous than naturalized citizens because they commit less violent crimes per capita than naturalized citizens. 

There is one thing about your argument that has me a little perplexed. Obviously I'm not going to convince you that illegal immigrants aren't a burden on American taxpayers. Hey, that's fine, I get it. You have your stats, and I have mine, and we can squabble back and forth for as long as you'd like. But if you're worried about how much illegal immigrants cost taxpayers, why aren't you worried about the cost of the wall? Why don't you care about how much it will impact the national debt? Since when did it become logical to add on a HUGE burden to taxpayers, for the sake of trying to stop the burden from illegal immigrants? I thought we hit rock bottom when people proposed drug tests for welfare recipients. Umm gee, doesn't that add an extra cost to a program that we obvious don't like in the first place, hence the reason we're proposing that the recipients take drug tests?!?! If your problem is with the program itself, why don't we just cut it out of the budget? Adding a burden to taxpayers, just to try and get rid of a burden to taxpayers, is not logical policy! You're not making sense! I'm a hardened Randroid. If you think you can convince me that we must raise taxes to fix the burden of illegal immigrants, I think you'll find you're going up against a wall. You haven't convinced me that immigrants are a burden on American taxpayers. You also haven't convinced me that immigrants are criminally dangerous either. I'm also not convinced that a wall would be effective, so I don't want to pay for a public project that WILL raise taxes. 

"@George_Horse ;

Just like the argument you made about the maginot line, this is a totally different demographic than the immigrants in Europe. Frankly, European problems should remain European problems. Furthermore, are you trying to suggest that everyone within the US needs to be screened? The overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in the US were done by Americans. I know you would hate it as much as I would if we lost our freedom of privacy because some wack job goes and kills people because of a supposed "Jewish conspiracy". These South Americans are not coming from countries where terrorism is really a problem. Maybe violent crime and political corruption, but not the type of terrorism we see here. We could close the borders and not let anybody in, but will that end terrorism in the US? 

"@John_C_87

I'm not sure how to properly respond to your argument because I'm not sure what you're talking about. Could you please clarify?

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

What we have here is a failure to communicate. The dollar amount of the tax burden of illegal immigrants from the years 1990 to 2016 is not a changeable number. It already happened. The purpose of the Yale study was to show that the heritage foundations study grossly underestimated the immigrant population. The Yale study did not count immigrant households, it counted individual immigrants. The dollar amount of the tax burden didn't change, the population size did. The findings of the Yale study have shown that illegal immigrants are not a burden on taxpayers, they actually put more money into the tax system than they take out. The findings have also shown that illegal immigrants are less dangerous than naturalized citizens because they commit less violent crimes per capita than naturalized citizens. 

There is one thing about your argument that has me a little perplexed. Obviously I'm not going to convince you that illegal immigrants aren't a burden on American taxpayers. Hey, that's fine, I get it. You have your stats, and I have mine, and we can squabble back and forth for as long as you'd like. But if you're worried about how much illegal immigrants cost taxpayers, why aren't you worried about the cost of the wall? Why don't you care about how much it will impact the national debt? Since when did it become logical to add on a HUGE burden to taxpayers, for the sake of trying to stop the burden from illegal immigrants? I thought we hit rock bottom when people proposed drug tests for welfare recipients. Umm gee, doesn't that add an extra cost to a program that we obvious don't like in the first place, hence the reason we're proposing that the recipients take drug tests?!?! If your problem is with the program itself, why don't we just cut it out of the budget? Adding a burden to taxpayers, just to try and get rid of a burden to taxpayers, is not logical policy! You're not making sense! I'm a hardened Randroid. If you think you can convince me that we must raise taxes to fix the burden of illegal immigrants, I think you'll find you're going up against a wall. You haven't convinced me that immigrants are a burden on American taxpayers. You also haven't convinced me that immigrants are criminally dangerous either. I'm also not convinced that a wall would be effective, so I don't want to pay for a public project that WILL raise taxes.

is a "randriod"??

piloteer

@CYDdharta

Someone who reads Ayn Rand 

John_C_87

@CYDharta

First let’s start with an obstacle built to the burdens of immigration as general idea in a united state is not a good thing. That generalization of cause and effect aside any study including one from Yale is wrong and does not make a curtail determination in economic outcome prior to any statement that includes increases dollar. Where does the dollar come from? Immigration of any kind is a tax burden so how one group can be ruled out as less burden from others again foolish and misleading as it is a political motivation to hold office. While the only way possible for any immigration issue to put more dollar into a system, then it takes out is if counterfeiting of the dollar is involved. This fact is universally truth with and structured market. The consumer simply does not bring in more dollar then what is there and the dollar is a federal registered receipt.

@piloteer

In reference to the uncertainty of what is said by me. We are not using tax money to build a canal with an adjacent fence we are securing funding to be held for a period as a shift in axiom cost can be used to outweigh expansion cost of a growth set prior in an economy. Economic development for a firm base on rural growth in the Midwest and Southern United States is when structured properly a secure investment holding. As it holds many advantages to the risk of disadvantages it creates. A fence/wall alone is simple a high risk privacy issue with no structure for global long term goal. A project like a massive Sothern U.S. canal and work on the Mississippi is a means to which the United States would be moving its place in world trade back to Center after some-time of abuse.

cheesycheese

George_Horse said:

piloteer said:

@George_Horse

Yes, they should be let in. It will be no burden on taxpayers, it will help the GDP grow, and there's no valid evidence that shows illegal immigrants are more criminally dangerous than naturalized citizens. The wall WILL make federal taxes increase, it will increase our national debt, and there's no evidence that it will dramatically decrease illegal immigration.

No they should not. All we will do is bring problems into our society. The same thing happened to Europe, they let them ALL in, and in return, they received terrorist attacks. Why? Because the backgrounds of the refugees were NOT checked, so they didn't know who had terrorist affiliations and who didn't. Instead, they [Immigrants] should come in by the legal process, and if you are so willing, would you let random those unknown immigrants into your home? 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/

sithlordtrain

America was founded on freedom. Fresh starts for immigrants. What you don't seem to understand here, is that we don't have an issue with immigrants, ALL WE ASK is that they follow the process like every other immigrant who has become a citizen. There are ports of entry, & consulates in the home countries of these people. You wanna come over here? DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.
Also, did you know 90% of the heroine that comes into this nation is smuggled over the southern border?@aksk_19299

all4actt

Vaulk and Mr_bombastic make good points but Vaulk your incorrect that before Trump there was no one trying to do anything about immigration.  I believe that in the most recent history it was Obama who brought up the need for a wall and before Trump came along he had support of much of the Democratic party.  Oh and the suggestion of just shooting people is just wrong.

I believe the wall to be necessary not because Trump says it to be so but because the people who work on the boarder says it is.  They are the experts.

As for technology it has it's place too but to rely on it soley is rediculous.  People act as if the technology (whatever type it may be short ofsomething that would either freeze the peole in place or exterminate  them as they cross and no one wants that) can  curb illegal crossing is not considering the fact that boarder patrol agents can't instantly transport themselves to the area that the technology has identfied an illegal crossing has taken place.

As for you who buy into the Democrates cries that it is based on racist views well your just buying into politcal propoganda.  Where was the screaming about racisim whenObama quietly removed the wet foot policy that allowed Cubans to stay in the country.

We have border on the Canadian side too.  You might argue that we are not building a wall there and I would say so far we havn't needed it.  We don't have people rushing the Canadian boarders by the thousands at a time.

Let's take the politics out of this and litsen to what the men and women that work the boarders tell us what they need in order to best control the borders on either side of the country.

Sharky

Doing nothing or declaring open borders, which appear to be the unofficial policies of Congressional Democrats, is not acceptable. A strong physical barrier to additional illegal immigration will not only slow the flow significantly, it will serve as a powerful deterrent to people thinking of making the dangerous trip from Central America. The wall isn't being built to "keep away immigrants". It's being built to slow or stop illegal immigration. 

all4actt

@Vaulk

you wrote:

...can anyone name ONE proposal that existed BEFORE Donald Trump brought it up during the Election 

A bill was sighned for 700 miles of boarder fencing by Democrats under the direction of President Obama in 2014.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744

Democrats also voted for it under President Bush. This included votes from then Senator Obama, Chuck Schumer, Pelosi and many other Democrates.

So a boarder wall, fencing or whatever you want to call it is not a new idea and was widely supported by both the Democratic Party and the Repuplican Party.

Trump wants a more secure wall and Democrats only turned against it because they seem hell bent on being on the opposite side of any issue Trump wants solved.

This is not an issue of discrimination or not wanting immigrants from Mexico or any other country.  This is only an issue because the Democratic Party wants to make it one since President Trump made it a campaign promise and they just don't want to agree with him about anything.

For me though it isn't about what our political leaders are saying. It is about what the men and women on that work on the boarder everyday are saying and they say a boarder wall is needed.

@WordsMatter

You wrote:  Personally I am against the wall, only because I think their are more cost effective ways to enforce the land border via technology, and I would be all for a digital wall.

Technology has it's uses but unless a that digital wall is going to freeze people in place it really wouldn't be very helpful.  Until Board Patrol can instantly teleport themself to the place where the electronic barrier indicates there has been a breech a so called digital wall is not going to help anything.  As it is the drone and video surveillance currently being used leaves them only watching more than half the time because there are no agents close enough to stop them.

So let's take the politics out of this and litsen to those who are the experts.

TKDB

Why not build the Border Wall?

The liberals refuse to do anything about it?

The Sanctuary Cities, are giving the illegal immigrants, or aliens sanctuary?
If they want to pander to those illegal aliens, then why not build a wall, as an answer to their Sanctuary cities ideological pro illegal immigrant mindset? 

So that says to me, that those political representatives in those 300 cities, have basically in a sense, placed, and prioritized those same illegal immigrants, above the safety, and the interests of their own citizens? 

And those businesses that have been utilizing the illegal immigrants, under the table, for how many years now, for their cheap labor? 
A wall, would be an answer, to their illegal use, of using those illegal aliens for their businesses?

So if there are some US citizens, who say no, to building a wall, then who are they siding with?

The illegal immigrants, or aliens, or the citizens of this country, who are here legally?

And didn't use the Southern Border, to tresspass into the United States, illegally?

And in some cases, exposing their own families to the danger, of coming into the country illegally with their mom, or dad?

all4actt

Vaulk

You said:  SERIOUSLY...can anyone name ONE proposal that existed BEFORE Donald Trump brought it up during the Election race?  

I can. 2014 during the Obama administration Senate bill 774 was passed which called for 700 miles of boarder fencing.  Sponsered by no other than Charles "Chuck" Schumer and supported by both the Democratic Party and the Repuplican party.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text

A similar bill was also passed under the Bush adminitration in 2006.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/1st

So a boarder fence, barrier, wall or whatever you want to call it is not a new concept.  Infact it was pretty much a bi-partisan concept until recently.

This was an accepted issue by both oarties until the Democrates decided that they must fight Trump on anything and everything.

The wall is not about discrimination or not wanting immigrants to come to our country.  It is about geting some control over who comes in.  It's about making it more difficult for drug smugglers and human slave traffickers.

Repuplicans know that and juding by their past voting records so do most Democrates.

So let's take the politics out of it and start litsening to the real experts.  The men and women on the boarder everyday.  They are the ones who know best and they say we need a wall.

all4actt

WordsMatter

You said:  Personally I am against the wall, only because I think their are more cost effective ways to enforce the land border via technology, and I would be all for a digital wall. 

Technology is also useful on the boarder but what is a digital wall going to do?  Send a signal everytime someone crosses it?  Then what?  Because unless this digutal wall is going to freeze people in place until a patrol can get there or the Boardee Patrol has some way of teleporting themselves to that loaction instantly,  the majority of the time the patrols aren't going to get there in time. It will be as affective as the cameras and drones are where a lot of the time they just get a video of people crossing and thats it.

TKDB

Why not build the Border Wall?

The liberals refuse to do anything about it?

The Sanctuary Cities, are giving the illegal immigrants, or aliens sanctuary?
If they want to pander to those illegal aliens, then why not build a wall, as an answer to their Sanctuary cities ideological pro illegal immigrant mindset? 

So that says to me, that those political representatives in those 300 cities, have basically in a sense, placed, and prioritized those same illegal immigrants, above the safety, and the interests of their own citizens? 

And those businesses that have been utilizing the illegal immigrants, under the table, for how many years now, for their cheap labor? 
A wall, would be an answer, to their illegal use, of using those illegal aliens, now wouldn't it? 

Various individuals are making decisions, for the rest of the public, that apparently favor the illegal immigrants, or aliens, over the very citizens of their own country, whether those same law abiding citizens, like it, or not?

Because some are addicted to, the ways, and means, that the illegal immigrants illegal actions have provided for those pro illegal immigrant supporters, by using those various influences, in a sense, against, some of the country itself?

For various types of profits?

So apparently those various profits, are worth it to keep the Southern Border, without a barrier?

It's worth it for those businesses, who have gotten used, to making money off of some of the citizens, from South of the border?

And some interest groups, apparently dislike having their business profits, not to be tresspassed on?

But it's OK, for the illegal immigrants, or aliens, to tresspass into the US illegally, because there are profits to be made from their presence?

So when it comes to 300 Sanctuary Cities, in the United States, exactly what types of "profits," might those same sanctuary cities, be garnering from the illegal immigrants, living in those same cities, with the law abiding citizens?

Humbug

If your house was constructed from thin air, and not even consist of cardboard walls or a paper roof over your head, with no real doors or anything but a bed of dry grass to lay in under the night sky... How sound and safe would you, your spouse and children be each and every night? 

tuner121

No, the wall will only amount to a small percentage. Most incoming immigrants are from boats and planes not land.

Vaulk

tuner121 said:

No, the wall will only amount to a small percentage. Most incoming immigrants are from boats and planes not land.

The numbers are in from the department of homeland security, immigrants coming over by boat and plane account for approximately 40% of immigration.  That's less than half of the issue.  The other "Majority" are crossing the border illegally on land.  I don't see any problem with addressing the majority of the problem first.

CYDdharta

tuner121 said:

No, the wall will only amount to a small percentage. Most incoming immigrants are from boats and planes not land.

No one is trying to stop immigrants, we want to stop illegals. 

Vaulk

I think a refocusing of the issue would serve well in this debate.  The wall isn't so much about stopping illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. (Yes it's about that too) but moreover it's about choking off the cartel's control of the border and that issue is actually 3 fold.

1.  The drug cartels use the allure of the United States to draw foreign immigrants into their sex trafficking business by offering "Escort" across the border.  Virtually no one is allowed to make the trek from Mexico into the U.S. without the Cartel's approval and the majority (51% or more) of the people working with the cartel to cross are entering into a violently enforced agreement to either become a sex slave or to become a labor slave.  Not to mention the number of female children who get caught by border patrol trying to cross who have reported that they were raped during the journey.

2. The Cartel is using the illegal immigrant movement to transport their drugs across the border.  The number of illegal immigrants that are caught every month attempting to cross the border who are also carrying illegal drugs are staggering.  Granted the majority of drugs entering the country from foreign lands are at the ports, this still accounts for a problem worth addressing.

3. Children are being sold to coyotes to assist in moving across the border in an attempt to circumvent detention when caught.  The number of children that are not only being kidnapped in Mexico but are actually being sold by their parents to people trying to cross the border in an attempt to prevent detention is disgusting.  Even CNN has reported that between April and May, over 1,126 families apprehended at the border presented indications of lying about being a family and in that same time period 206 of those cases were proven fraudulent.  At bare bones minimum that's 206 children that were exposed to one of the most dangerous travel routes in the United States who didn't belong to the people who had them...and that was less than a 60 day period.

Izni

LOL, building a wall will not change anything in particular, it is just waste of public taxes. Instead of wasting money on wall He should have increase the job sectors in different industries, america is big enough to have large amount of population, this only shows lack of US's services and employment deficiencies.

RickeyD

@atomicgunner ; America is a Nation of Law, the foundational entity of our Constitutional Republic. Without borders we do not have a Nation and our Southern Border is an open sieve of sex-trafficking - illegal narcotics - illegal weapons - gang warfare - terrorists - illegal immigrants i.e. non-assimilating multiculturalism.  Suggesting that the border wall is "wrong" is Progressive-Democrat insanity, pure and simple! 

MayCaesar

Here is what our Lady says about this, gazing melancholically towards the distant shores of Europe:

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

A "wall to keep away immigrants" does not seem to appear in this passage.

It is also worth noting that, up until Wilson's presidency at the beginning of the 20th century the US did not have an immigration system as such; the term "illegal immigrant" did not exist. Anyone who wanted to move to the US could just walk in and stay there permanently without any identification (with the exception of Chinese immigrants, whose entrance was restricted a few decades earlier).

The government has been rapidly expanding since Wilson (and, to a more limited extent, since Lincoln), and adoption of immigration laws was one of the first nails in the Founding Fathers' coffins. Interestingly enough, it was the Republican party that championed open borders up until approximately early 90-s, when the Democratic party started adopting identity politics and realised that immigrants are a valuable identity category to target. Republicans really turned their back on their historical ideals with this one.
Not that Democrats are any better. Despite what they say, their favorite president, Obama, was one of the hardest on immigration presidents in the history of the US (remember the abolition of "Wet Foot Dry Foot" policy on one of the last days of his presidency?), he was the one who created the notorious ICE organisation, and he dramatically expanded the resources spent on the border protection.

As an immigrant myself, it seems to me that each party only supports easier immigration when it is in opposition; as soon as a president affiliated with it gets elected, they flip their stance immediately. Nobody actually cares about us.
Which is fine; I really just want to be left alone. Unfortunately, they have already managed to implement a lot of horrible laws making our continuous stay here increasingly difficult, so even if they do leave us alone (which they have no indication of planning to do any time soon), it will not be quite the paradise we are hoping for.

That is what governments do: make people's lives difficult. I have grown to believe that this is really the only function of a government.

noah06

@CYDdharta we don't really need the wall there are not many acts of terrorism coming from Mexico in fact most Terrorism comes from countries like Afghanistan in the middle east and I dont hear anybody talking about that. I'm 13 years old go easy on me.

noah06

@CYDdharta we don't really need the wall there are not many acts of terrorism coming from Mexico in fact most Terrorism comes from countries like Afghanistan in the middle east and I dont hear anybody talking about that. I'm 13 years old go easy on me.

noah06

@CYDdharta we don't really need the wall there are not many acts of terrorism coming from Mexico in fact most Terrorism comes from countries like Afghanistan in the middle east and I dont hear anybody talking about that. I'm 13 years old go easy on me.

all4actt

I stand with the experts in law enforcement (board patrol, ICE, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, shall I go on?) That all seem to agree with the need for a boarder wall.@Vaulk Before President Trump made the "Wall" a campaign  promise  was a bi-partisan issue.https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744If you follow the link you will see that 700 miles of boarder fencing was sponsored by Charles "Chuck" Schumer in the 2013-2014 Congress.This is a list of who voted for it in Congress.https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/s168This is who voted for it in the Senate.https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00168So in 2013 the Democratic Party supported a fence (barrier, wall or whatever you want to call it) in 2013 under the Obama administration but is now completely against it.I contend that the only reason that the Democratic Party now fights it is because they seem to want to fight the Trump administration about everthing

 @atomicgunner

The wall isn't to keep out immigrants.  It's to assit the different agencies to keep illegal traffic out.

The last point I would like to make is that not one thing is going to stop all of our boarder problems. Don't you think we should give the law enforcement agencies the tools they say they need to be the most affective?

Facts_Dude

So, the wall would be a terrible funding program and would actually keep illegal immigrants in. If we were to build a wall, we would have to stretch through more than 2,000 miles of land, cutting through mountains, towns, and homes in-between the borderline. It would cost an estimate of 12 to 25 billion dollars to make, making it one of the worst funding programs in American history. The wall wouldn't even keep immigrants out because 40% of immigrants arrive in america by plane, and a wall cant stop a plane. If we were to build a wall, illegal immigrants will be kept inside of america. most illegal immigrants are just people who overstayed there visa on a trip to america. our main problem right now with illegal immigrants is that it is harder for them to go back to their own country than it is to get into america. nearly 1 out of 30 people in america are undocumented immigrants because of this. also, we deport a lot of legalized immigrants by accident. on the 1940's, local state officers deported up to 2 million Mexicans, and more than half were Americans. and one of the worst things about this proposition is that there are barely any courts in america that help immigrants from being deported. there are only 57 immigrant courts in all of america. and even if an immigrant were to get into a immigration court, they do not provide lawyers for any illegal immigrants, not even for unaccompanied minors. Now, I propose a new law reformation. what if america creates an exam for immigrants which prove if they would be harmful in the american society or not. that way we could stop the problem right at it's core. I also propose that instead of deporting immigrants along with the illegal ones, we help them instead. this could be by after their visa expires, the court system could help them get back to wherever they came from.

RS_master

atomicgunner said:

No, the wall should not be built. It is not right.

@atomicgunner there is no reasoning of why it should not. The wall can be built if the Mexican people are annoying the american people. In fact the Mexicans can travel by plane if the wall is built and it is stopping them from just annoying the americans but yet they can travel on holiday basis and purpose.

YeshuaBought

When conservatives whine about white immigrants, then maybe we can talk.

MichaelElpers

@YeshuaRedeemed. Were not whining about any color or race of immigrants, just illegal ones.

RickeyD

@atomicgunner ; It is the foolish and historically lacking in knowledge Progressive-Socialist that say America has no right to  safe borders and sovereignty. I policed the 4th-largest municipality in the United States for 31-years...a southern municipality, a sanctuary city...illegal immigration; Mexican-Central American-South American gangs and cartels and sex-traffickers are destroying America, killing American citizens, vomiting their illegal narcotics into our cities, destroying labor opportunities for lower and welfare class citizens, inundating our municipalities with illegal weapons, illegal drugs, killing our fellow-citizens in robberies-drunk driving-rape-burglary.

It is the mindless Progressive and the Fake News media that suggests America should be a dumping ground for other Nation's refuse...this is mindless, foolishness. America must secure its southern border and stop the millions of illegal aliens flowing into our Nation.

Open borders is a demonic Progressive-Democrat strategy to shore-up a new, naive, ignorant, dependent, voting base so that the Socialists can infuse their Hell upon the American people, the patriots, while never losing an election regardless of their continued impotence.

Progressive Socialism/the Democrat Party is a demonic curse upon the American people.

YeshuaBought

MichaelElpers said:

@YeshuaRedeemed. Were not whining about any color or race of immigrants, just illegal ones.

Yes you are, you are whining about black and brown minorities entering the US of A.

CYDdharta

noah06 said:

@CYDdharta we don't really need the wall there are not many acts of terrorism coming from Mexico in fact most Terrorism comes from countries like Afghanistan in the middle east and I dont hear anybody talking about that. I'm 13 years old go easy on me.

Um, OK; but even if that were true, acts of terrorism are fairly rare, certainly far more rare than regular crime.  Illegals, who represent 3.2% of the total U.S. population, make up 30% of federal prisoners.  Additionally, based on data from Arizona's prison system, 

-  Undocumented immigrants are 163% more likely to be convicted of 1st degree murder than are U.S.citizens, 168% more likely to be convicted of 2nd degree murder, and 189.6% more likely to be convicted of manslaughter.

-  Undocumented immigrant criminals are 45.4% more likely than other criminals to have been gang members, and 133% more likely to receive sentencing enhancements for being classified as dangerous.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992

And that doesn't even touch on the social costs of illegals, which are truly staggering.

By way of contrast, there have only been 34 Islamic terror attacks in the last 20 years.

MayCaesar

@RickeyD

The US had open borders before the word "socialism" existed. The borders were only closed in the early 20th century, ironically by the Democratic semi-socialist president Wilson.

You are defending a traditionally socialistic policy. Christian countries traditionally had relaxed borders in order to promote trade, while socialistic countries almost always erected iron curtains in order to prevent hungry people from escaping, and enemy spies from entering. Remember Reagan's "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall"? Eh, those times when Republicans were globalists advocating for erasing borders, rather than nationalists cheering for self-segregation...

RickeyD

@MayCaesar ; America did not incur the problems from the southern border years ago that have now become a status quo for two or more decades. Times and things and people and governments have changed. Wilson was a Progressive socialist.

Christians obeyed the governments that they were obligated to obey. America is NOT a Nation without borders and it's insanity to believe the sieve to our south is a good thing. Wake up...America is dying.  America is a Nation whose Constitutional Republic is based on the Rule of Law...it's called illegal immigration for a purpose...they're invaders not immigrants.

MayCaesar

@RickeyD

... America had a war with Mexico in that period. What can be a bigger problem from the southern border, than an army crossing it and killing everyone in its path? Still, people did not give up on their principles, which they believed to be more important than some small immediate gains.

Perhaps you should read a bit about the period of "wild West", if you think that Christians obeyed the government in the US always.

America is not dying, but even if it was, nationalists pushing for isolationist policies would not help the situation.

RickeyD

@MayCaesar ; Why not work in law enforcement for 31-yrs, , in a municipality that is a sanctuary city, , as opposed to being brainwashed by Progressive Socialism, CNN, MSNBC, CBS...?  When you've handled the body fluids, the death, the Hell, that is illegal immigration, let's talk, !

MayCaesar

@RickeyD ;

People who founded this country and instituted the open border policy - had gone through the brutal Independence War against the strongest military in the world. You think your work in law enforcement compares to that?

I do not have television, but I will be glad to discuss with you the TV channels of your choice that, unlike CNN/MSNBC/CBS, are truthful and do not have a bias or agenda.

John_C_87

A canal should be dug from the gulf of Mexico the Pacific Ocean. Of such size supper tankers could travel its distance.

John_C_87

@RickeyD ;
Simple, It is our turn.

Once apron a time American outlaws fled to Mexico.....
So we are all clear here Ricky tattoos count as a uniform in military dress.

Where any one of the men on the top photo may look to be a clear threat to a woman. The little innocent one on the bottom, with no tattoos,  believe it or not starts out as a direct threat to a woman and may kill her for no reason, out of nowhere, way before it runs with the wrong crowd.

Facts_Dude

So, the wall would be a terrible funding program and would actually keep illegal immigrants in. If we were to build a wall, we would have to stretch through more than 2,000 miles of land, cutting through mountains, towns, and homes in-between the borderline. It would cost an estimate of 12 to 25 billion dollars to make, making it one of the worst funding programs in American history. The wall wouldn't even keep immigrants out because 40% of immigrants arrive in america by plane, and a wall cant stop a plane. If we were to build a wall, illegal immigrants will be kept inside of america. most illegal immigrants are just people who overstayed there visa on a trip to america. our main problem right now with illegal immigrants is that it is harder for them to go back to their own country than it is to get into america. nearly 1 out of 30 people in america are undocumented immigrants because of this. also, we deport a lot of legalized immigrants by accident. on the 1940's, local state officers deported up to 2 million Mexicans, and more than half were Americans. and one of the worst things about this proposition is that there are barely any courts in america that help immigrants from being deported. there are only 57 immigrant courts in all of america. and even if an immigrant were to get into a immigration court, they do not provide lawyers for any illegal immigrants, not even for unaccompanied minors. Now, I propose a new law reformation. what if america creates an exam for immigrants which prove if they would be harmful in the american society or not. that way we could stop the problem right at it's core. I also propose that instead of deporting immigrants along with the illegal ones, we help them instead. this could be by after their visa expires, the court system could help them get back to wherever they came from.

Facts_Dude

So, the wall would be a terrible funding program and would actually keep illegal immigrants in. If we were to build a wall, we would have to stretch through more than 2,000 miles of land, cutting through mountains, towns, and homes in-between the borderline. It would cost an estimate of 12 to 25 billion dollars to make, making it one of the worst funding programs in American history. The wall wouldn't even keep immigrants out because 40% of immigrants arrive in america by plane, and a wall cant stop a plane. If we were to build a wall, illegal immigrants will be kept inside of america. most illegal immigrants are just people who overstayed there visa on a trip to america. our main problem right now with illegal immigrants is that it is harder for them to go back to their own country than it is to get into america. nearly 1 out of 30 people in america are undocumented immigrants because of this. also, we deport a lot of legalized immigrants by accident. on the 1940's, local state officers deported up to 2 million Mexicans, and more than half were Americans. and one of the worst things about this proposition is that there are barely any courts in america that help immigrants from being deported. there are only 57 immigrant courts in all of america. and even if an immigrant were to get into a immigration court, they do not provide lawyers for any illegal immigrants, not even for unaccompanied minors. Now, I propose a new law reformation. what if america creates an exam for immigrants which prove if they would be harmful in the american society or not. that way we could stop the problem right at it's core. I also propose that instead of deporting immigrants along with the illegal ones, we help them instead. this could be by after their visa expires, the court system could help them get back to wherever they came from.

Facts_Dude

So, the wall would be a terrible funding program and would actually keep illegal immigrants in. If we were to build a wall, we would have to stretch through more than 2,000 miles of land, cutting through mountains, towns, and homes in-between the borderline. It would cost an estimate of 12 to 25 billion dollars to make, making it one of the worst funding programs in American history. The wall wouldn't even keep immigrants out because 40% of immigrants arrive in america by plane, and a wall cant stop a plane. If we were to build a wall, illegal immigrants will be kept inside of america. most illegal immigrants are just people who overstayed there visa on a trip to america. our main problem right now with illegal immigrants is that it is harder for them to go back to their own country than it is to get into america. nearly 1 out of 30 people in america are undocumented immigrants because of this. also, we deport a lot of legalized immigrants by accident. on the 1940's, local state officers deported up to 2 million Mexicans, and more than half were Americans. and one of the worst things about this proposition is that there are barely any courts in america that help immigrants from being deported. there are only 57 immigrant courts in all of america. and even if an immigrant were to get into a immigration court, they do not provide lawyers for any illegal immigrants, not even for unaccompanied minors. Now, I propose a new law reformation. what if america creates an exam for immigrants which prove if they would be harmful in the american society or not. that way we could stop the problem right at it's core. I also propose that instead of deporting immigrants along with the illegal ones, we help them instead. this could be by after their visa expires, the court system could help them get back to wherever they came from.

Vaulk

YeshuaRedeemed said:

When conservatives whine about white immigrants, then maybe we can talk.

The maltreatment of newcomers to the United States was, of course, hardly a cross for the Irish to bear on their own. However, while the number of German immigrants entering the United States nearly matched that of the Irish during the 1850s, the Irish were particularly vilified by the country’s Anglo-Saxon Protestants whose ancestors had explicitly made their exodus across the ocean to find a refuge from papism and ensure their worship was cleansed of any remaining Catholic vestiges.

https://www.history.com/news/when-america-despised-the-irish-the-19th-centurys-refugee-crisis

MichaelElpers

@YeshuaRedeemed. Thats not true.  We're Purely whining about illegal immigration, it just happens to be that the majority of the problem is coming from the southern border.  I dont care what skin color they are.

John_C_87

I believe a wall was and will be a very important part of the Howard Hughes canal process to help keep people from falling in the roughly 1,500 ft. wide x 300 ft deep x 79,200,000 ft. long water way Meg infrastructure project. I'm not really stuck on the name but after what aviation has done to the shipping industry and world as a hole, Why not?

itsnicolemate

I do believe that we should build the wall because it is meant to keep out the people who are bad. We still welcome the good ones. We need to fix the system and the test though. 

TKDB

"Should the wall be build to keep away immigrants?"

The best type of Immigration Wall to have, would be to make the Ideological notion of Sanctuary Cities, illegal.

I've been through a few Sanctuary Cities, and they are flush with illegal immigrants, where businesses have been built to cater, pander, and coddle them.

It's weird, when we live in a country based on Law's, and there are various Politicians (who went fishing for Votes, by campaigning to the illegal immigrant population in their individual districts) who are in charge of their various cities, are apparently comfortable with compromising their citizens safety, by giving Sanctuary to some of the 22 million illegal immigrants who are in the United States illegally?

If any business has, or have been utilizing illegal immigrants under the table, shut the business down, and arrest the business personnel.

What's more important?

A country based on Law's?

Or compromising the safety of the legal U.S. citizens, by compromising their public safety, by giving illegal sanctuary to any illegal immigrant, or alien?

If the answer is to compromise the safety of the legal U.S. citizen, by giving any illegal immigrant sanctuary, then the answer is, welcome to the (Impolite Civil War,) of the illegal immigrant, being placed on a pedestal above the rest of the law abiding citizens of the United States.

One Wall isn't enough, you need a new Law/ Wall that defends the law abiding citizens from being victimized by the Illegal actions of the Sanctuary Cities laws, that is in a direct conflict with the Law's of the U.S.


The above isn't anti Freedom, because if there are some Politicians who are pro Sanctuary City, then, they are being anti Law abiding Politicians then aren't they?

Meaning that they have compromised their Law abiding principles to illegally cater to the illegal immigrants in their individual districts? 

That is what an anti Freedom policy looks like. 

TKDB

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

"Sanctuary city"

"Not to be confused with Cities of Refuge.

"City of Sanctuary" redirects here. For the British charity, see City of Sanctuary (UK).

Learn more The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject."

"Sanctuary city (French: ville sanctuaire; Spanish: ciudad santuario) refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America and Western Europe, that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law. Leaders of sanctuary cities say they want to reduce fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who are in the country illegally, so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school. In the United States, municipal policies include prohibiting police or city employees from questioning people about their immigration status and refusing requests by national immigration authorities to detain people beyond their release date, if they were jailed for breaking local law.[1] Such policies can be set expressly in law (de jure) or observed in practice (de facto), but the designation "sanctuary city" does not have a precise legal definition. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated in 2018 that 564 U.S. jurisdictions, including states and municipalities, had adopted sanctuary policies.[2][3][4] "

"Studies on the relationship between sanctuary status and crime have found that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and stronger economies than comparable non-sanctuary cities.[5][6][7][8] Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law. Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that enforcement of national law is not the duty of localities.[9] Legal opinions vary on whether immigration enforcement by local police is constitutional.[10] "

"European cities have been inspired by the same political currents of the sanctuary movement as American cities, but the term "sanctuary city" now has different meanings in Europe and North America.[11] In the United Kingdom and Ireland, and in continental Europe, sanctuary city refers to cities that are committed to welcoming refugees, asylum seekers and others who are seeking safety. Such cities are now found in 80 towns, cities and local areas in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.[12] The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding, which is done through raising awareness, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections in the arts, sport, health, education, faith groups and other sectors of society.[13] Glasgow and Swansea have become known as noted sanctuary cities.[12][14][15] "

MayCaesar

@TKDB

The political system in this country is based on the principle of decentralisation: the country is split into multiple states, each state is split into multiple counties, and each county is split into multiple municipalities - with each individual unit having a large degree of independence. The federal government does not get to dictate individual cities whether they can provide a safe harbor for specific groups of people or not. If you do not like sanctuary cities, then you are free not to live in them - but you do not get to tell those who do want to live in them to abolish their sanctuary policies.

When will people finally realise that the world is not centered at them, and their individual preferences do not define how the entire humanity should work? Such a simple thought, yet so few people get it...

all4actt

I stand with the experts in law enforcement (board patrol, ICE, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, shall I go on?) That all seem to agree with the need for a boarder wall.  Not being an expert on dealing with southern boarder issues who am I to disagree with their assessments.

The wall isn't to keep immigrants out it is to stem the flow of illegal immigration, sex and worker trafficking, drugs,guns, criminals and anything else they want to bring over the boarder illegally.

No politicians are out there trying to stop immigration completely.  At least none that I have heard.