Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
JoyinMudville

Trump Threatens to Shut Government To Force Dems to Pay for Wall He Said Mexico Would Pay For

348 posts in this topic

Illegal immigration is already way down.  It could be cut to a trickle with the wall added.  Multiply the savings to taxpayers of each of those people who does not come here illegally and the wall will easily pay for itself inside of a decade.

 

I think you have fallen for the wall scam much in the way semi auto fell for the Susan Rice scam.

 

Trump shouldn't need Democrats to vote for the wall, unless Republicans refuse to vote for it. Perhaps those Republicans see the scam.

 

Look at the man you are dealing with, our president. He will support anything that he thinks will win him favor. He stands for virtually nothing.

 

True, that as a leading Obama birther, he is an incredible racist who really would like to rid the country of brown people. But the fact is, other than a lot of bitter, white nationalists, on this issue, he doesn't have many people on his side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a biased source and is predictably innaccuate:

 

"Camarota’s Estimation Of Immigrant’s Use Of Government Benefits Is Based On A Debunked Study. The CIS report assumes that immigrants “receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes." That assertion comes from a Heritage Foundation study from 2013 by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine. The Cato Institute reviewed that report, concluding that it is “depressingly static, leading to a massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration and diminishing estimated tax revenue” because it “explicitly refuses to consider the GDP growth and economic productivity gains from immigration reform—factors that increase native-born American incomes.” It is also important to note that Richwine has a history of disseminating “fundamentally flawed” reports on immigration and has opined that Latinos may “never reach IQ parity” with white people. From the May 7, 2013, Cato Institute analysis of the Heritage Foundation report...

 

 

The Cost Of The Wall Will Be Much Higher Than The Report Estimates. CIS’ claims are based on some of the earliest estimates of the cost of the wall, creating a range based on Trump’s figure of $12 billion and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) estimate of $15 billion. A Reuters report based on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report estimated that the border wall “would cost as much as $21.6 billion.” The report also noted that another group, Bernstein Research, has pegged the cost at about $25 billion after taking into account “uncertainties around the project that could drive its cost up.” These estimates did not take into account the ongoing cost of maintaining the wall. From the February 9 Reuters article...

 

 

The Report Places An Arbitrary And Overly Generous Number On The Wall’s Effectiveness. The CIS report discusses various figures for the number of people the wall might prevent from coming into the United States: “9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross [the border] in the next decade,” and “half of those expected to successfully enter illegally” to claim that “it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion,” even though there is no evidence to support either level of effectiveness. There have been a number of reports explaining that building a wall would be ineffective at stopping illegal immigration. The Cato Institute’s David Bier told Wired, “At a basic level, a wall or fence can never stop illegal immigration because a wall or fence cannot apprehend anyone.” The Wired report also explained that many immigrants “do not attempt to circumvent border control, but instead go to entry points willingly and seek asylum or other protections.” BBC explained that “it’s next to impossible to construct a wall that can’t be tunnelled under,” adding, “Since 1990, federal agents have discovered more than 200 tunnels under the existing border walls.” Additionally, as Forbes pointed out, “analysts believe the majority (possibly vast majority) of illegal immigrants enter America by air” because many “arrive in America with a visa - and then simply don't leave.” The Migration Policy Institute noted that a border wall would not deter immigrants fleeing poverty and execution but rather steer them “to alternative routes,” which would undoubtedly result in “an increase in the number of deaths.” Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) own estimates confirmed that finding, concluding that while there was a drop in apprehensions where a fence existed, “the drop there was followed by a spike in apprehensions” in other areas. CBP also found that breaches to the border fence in fiscal year 2010 cost the agency “at least $7.2 million to repair.” Experts including CBP officials, law enforcement officials along the southern border, senators, and former DHS secretaries have been vocal in their opposition to the wall, saying that it would be “of little or no value” and that it’s “one of the dumbest ideas.” [Wired, 1/19/17; BBC, 1/26/17; Forbes, 1/28/17; Migration Policy Institute, 10/5/16; Bloomberg, 2/13/17; Media Matters, 12/1/17; 9/1/16, The Hill, 7/13/16]"

 

https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/02/23/nativist-group-going-all-out-sell-trumps-border-wall-proposal/215435

Like I said, everyone has an opinion.  What can't happen is maintaining a leaky border and letting people overstay visas.  There is nothing wrong with immigration but it must be legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, everyone has an opinion.  What can't happen is maintaining a leaky border and letting people overstay visas.  There is nothing wrong with immigration but it must be legal.

Unless they go after the demand side with the same gusto, it is all posturing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless they go after the demand side with the same gusto, it is all posturing. 

I would agree which is why guest worker programs need to be expanded and made more effective.  Seafood workers come to MD yearly, do their jobs and go home.  There is no reason that can't work in other areas.  Where there is work that Americans can't or won't do, we need to make some provisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, everyone has an opinion.  What can't happen is maintaining a leaky border and letting people overstay visas.  There is nothing wrong with immigration but it must be legal.

Opinions from neutral sources should carry more weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like I said.  Complaining about the source.  Naturally, open border folks will have their own "numbers" so what's the point?  Both will think the other wrong but common sense tells you that keeping out illegals saves money.  

 

Come on dawg...come on.  CIS!!!!   Look them up and the founder John Tanton I think his name is and FAIR.   Geeeeezzzz, CIS    :D

 

You would be more credible citing the Aryan Nation.  Come on V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions from neutral sources should carry more weight.

Media Matters is hardly neutral.  And if CATO were supporting the idea, you wouldn't think they were neutral, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree which is why guest worker programs need to be expanded and made more effective.  Seafood workers come to MD yearly, do their jobs and go home.  There is no reason that can't work in other areas.  Where there is work that Americans can't or won't do, we need to make some provisions.

Consider this:

 

"A study by economists Gihoon Hong of Indiana University South Bend and John McLaren of the University of Virginia concluded that by raising demand for goods and services in the communities where they take up residence, new immigrants serve to create 1.2 new jobs each and boost the pay of Americans. Cutting down on illegal immigration wouldn't save jobs, on net; it would eliminate them."

 

http://herald-review.com/steve-chapman-immigration-crackdown-sure-to-fail/article_86fdac68-c1f2-5120-b7bf-1b7aab32adc7.html

 

Increasingly, I wonder what the point is of all this anti-immigration rhetoric. Other than "its the law" there seems to be little reason for it.

 

I keep coming back to the White working class resentment that put Trump into the White House. Other than appealing to these people, I don't see the point.

 

Can you provide a rational purpose for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on dawg...come on.  CIS!!!!   Look them up and the founder John Tanton I think his name is and FAIR.   Geeeeezzzz, CIS    :D

 

You would be more credible citing the Aryan Nation.  Come on V

They have presented numbers.  The usual response would be to present countering numbers rather than attack the source.  That was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Media Matters is hardly neutral.  And if CATO were supporting the idea, you wouldn't think they were neutral, either.

The media matters source cites many studies, including one from Cato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Media Matters is hardly neutral.  And if CATO were supporting the idea, you wouldn't think they were neutral, either.

 

Oh come off it and just admit it's only for that Trump likes it, therefore you just love it.  Just speak the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this:

 

"A study by economists Gihoon Hong of Indiana University South Bend and John McLaren of the University of Virginia concluded that by raising demand for goods and services in the communities where they take up residence, new immigrants serve to create 1.2 new jobs each and boost the pay of Americans. Cutting down on illegal immigration wouldn't save jobs, on net; it would eliminate them."

 

http://herald-review.com/steve-chapman-immigration-crackdown-sure-to-fail/article_86fdac68-c1f2-5120-b7bf-1b7aab32adc7.html

 

Increasingly, I wonder what the point is of all this anti-immigration rhetoric. Other than "its the law" there seems to be little reason for it.

 

I keep coming back to the White working class resentment that put Trump into the White House. Other than appealing to these people, I don't see the point.

 

Can you provide a rational purpose for it?

Sure.  First it's the law and we are a nation of laws.  That's how this system works.  The response to an unpopular law is to have it changed, not to ignore it.  What if we spread that idea to lots of other areas?   Secondly, this rosy opinion ignores the billions spent on apprehension, prosecution, deportation and incarceration for illegal aliens here committing crimes.  The fewer illegal aliens, the fewer illegal alien criminals.  That doesn't mean all or most are criminals but by weeding them out and preventing new arrivals, we save a substantial amount of money that can go elsewhere.  Like I said, immigration is fine but it must be legal.

Edited by veritas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have presented numbers.  The usual response would be to present countering numbers rather than attack the source.  That was my point.

 

 

No need to present anything to counter CIS.  It self counters with no credibility.  Just right-wing K Street DC loonies --- FAIR - CIS.  Give me a break  :D   It's like needing to present information to counter that Mexico wasn't going to pay for the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come off it and just admit it's only for that Trump likes it, therefore you just love it.  Just speak the truth.

I see you want to meander off into the personal.  As if I only thought about illegal immigration in 2015.  Please, this is childish. Trump happens to be right on that issue and people like that someone finally brought it to the fore.  Whether it was Trump or someone else who did it, is irrelevant.  It needed to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. First it's the law and we are a nation of laws. That's how this system works. The response to an unpopular law is to have it changed, not to ignore it. What if we spread that idea to lots of other areas? Secondly, this rosy opinion ignores the billions spent on apprehension, prosecution, deportation and incarceration for illegal aliens here committing crimes. The fewer illegal aliens, the fewer illegal alien criminals. That doesn't mean all or most are criminals but by weeding them out and preventing new arrivals, we save a substantial amount of money that can go elsewhere. Like I said, immigration is fine but it must be legal.

Clearly, the law is not working.

 

So rather than defend the law which you really cannot defend, and, you can't (after all, more immigrants means less crime than more Americans does), why don't you express support for the law to be changed?

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to present anything to counter CIS.  It self counters with no credibility.  Just right-wing K Street DC loonies --- FAIR - CIS.  Give me a break  :D   It's like needing to present information to counter that Mexico wasn't going to pay for the wall.

How convenient.  So much easier to attack the other guy's credibility than actually counter his data.  That's how the left always operates.  It's why they shout down conservative speakers.  It's always easier than actually presenting a convincing case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How convenient.  So much easier to attack the other guy's credibility than actually counter his data.  That's how the left always operates.  It's why they shout down conservative speakers.  It's always easier than actually presenting a convincing case.

That's because the right just lies. You count counter alternative facts, and they shouldn't be normalized either. that's the problem the media normalizes the right's insanity and phobia of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, the law is not working.

 

So rather than defend the law which you really cannot defend, and, you can't (after all, more immigrants means less crime than more Americans does), why don't you express support for the law to be changed?

First off, the law has never been aggressively enforced.  How can it possibly be said not to work when nobody tries to seriously enforce it?  That's like leaving the vault door to the bank open and then claiming that vaults don't work when you get robbed. The question isn't why I don't want the law changed.  The question is why you want an open border and oppose our efforts to maintain our national sovereignty.  Nobody is calling for ending immigration, only properly controlling it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you want to meander off into the personal.  As if I only thought about illegal immigration in 2015.  Please, this is childish. Trump happens to be right on that issue and people like that someone finally brought it to the fore.  Whether it was Trump or someone else who did it, is irrelevant.  It needed to be done.

 

:D   Look up CIS.  Look up FAIR.   Look up John Tanton.  It was your source.  Nothing personal but if you take it that way, tough as I do not care.  I'm just telling you that your dodo source stinks.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is well aware of John Tanton and his ops....

Edited by BaySock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because the right just lies. You count counter alternative facts, and they shouldn't be normalized either. that's the problem the media normalizes the right's insanity and phobia of reality.

So, you also have nothing.  You can't claim them to be "alternative" facts until you convincingly present your own facts.  This seems fairly easy to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, the law is not working.

 

So rather than defend the law which you really cannot defend, and, you can't (after all, more immigrants means less crime than more Americans does), why don't you express support for the law to be changed?

No, clearly the law is not effectively enforced. Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D   Look up CIS.  Look up FAIR.   Look up John Tanton.  It was your source.  Nothing personal but if you take that way, tough as I do not care.  I'm just telling you that you dodo source stinks.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is well aware of John Tanton and his ops....

What makes you think the SPLC is any less biased than CIS?  Everyone comes down somewhere and some other group will think they are nutty.  All that matters is whether the data adds up or not.  I don't care if Pee Wee Herman is presenting it.  The question is whether it is accurate.  The only way to get a handle on that is to see countering data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, the law has never been aggressively enforced. How can it possibly be said not to work when nobody tries to seriously enforce it? That's like leaving the vault door to the bank open and then claiming that vaults don't work when you get robbed. The question isn't why I don't want the law changed. The question is why you want an open border and oppose our efforts to maintain our national sovereignty. Nobody is calling for ending immigration, only properly controlling it.

 

I thought Obama set records deporting people. Those coming in are down to a trickle. We see Trump going after people who are productive workers, contributing to society. You said yourself we shouldn't go after these people. Studies show us that deporting them hurts the economy.

 

You said you supported legal immigration. Why not call for laws that make them legal?

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0