9
   

The wall

 
 
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2018 05:50 pm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 969 • Replies: 46

 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2018 06:18 pm
@neptuneblue,
Trump's Wall is an impossibility. The terrain itself is not conducive to building any permanent type structure, not can one be built that cannot be swam around.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jun, 2018 09:03 pm
@neptuneblue,
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/19/trump-border-wall-funding-immigration-653530

President Donald Trump is getting frustrated with his administration’s own demands for border wall funding.

In a private meeting regarding the wall Monday, Trump fumed at senators and his own staff about the $1.6 billion the Senate is planning to send him this fall, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Trump wants the full $25 billion upfront and doesn’t understand why Congress is going to supply him funds in a piecemeal fashion — even though that’s how the spending process typically works.

“He’s focused on border security. And like all presidents, he wants it done now. But we’re part of the legislative process. It’s slower and deliberate," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who met with Trump.

The president said at the meeting that if Congress doesn’t give him the resources he needs for border security, he will shut down the government in September, according to one of the people familiar with the meeting. He did not give a specific number, but has been fixated on getting the $25 billion in a lump sum.

In fact, the $1.6 billion figure came from Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, who attended the meeting. Mulvaney submitted the request to Congress earlier this year, though the administration has since upped its ask to $2.2 billion.

Senate Democrats offered to provide $25 billion in border wall funding earlier this year in return for giving 1.8 million young undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship. But Trump and most Republicans rebuffed that proposal to salvage the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Democrats are unlikely to provide $25 billion for Trump's wall absent a much broader immigration deal.

Trump's renewed focus on the border wall comes amid rising pressure to end his administration's policy of separating families that cross the border illegally. The “zero tolerance” policy shift has been roundly criticized by lawmakers in both parties, but Trump has blamed Congress for inaction on immigration.

"Now is the best opportunity ever for Congress to change the ridiculous and obsolete laws on immigration. Get it done, always keeping in mind that we must have strong border security," Trump tweeted on Tuesday morning.

GOP lawmakers are loath to see a government shutdown on their watch just weeks before the midterm elections.

“It’s probably an overwhelming belief in the House and the Senate, especially the Senate, that government shutdowns aren’t good for anybody," Shelby said.

The Appropriations Committee began working to pass its Homeland Security bill on Tuesday. Democrats seem unlikely to change course and agree to add more border security money for the president.

"We've got the bill and we're moving forward and I think we're going to get good bipartisan support for it. I think it's a good bill that will keep our borders safe," said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), ranking member of the Homeland Security appropriations committee.

On Monday, GOP Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Shelby both tried to explain to Trump that the Senate is merely meeting Mulvaney’s request and has to cut a bipartisan deal with Democrats. The Senate needs 60 votes to pass a spending bill, so Republicans would have to find at least nine Democratic votes.

"We're going to make a down payment on that working together," said Capito, chairwoman of Homeland Security spending panel.

But Trump has not been mollified. He raised his voice several times in Monday's meeting with Mulvaney, White House staffers and the senators, insisting he needs the full $25 billion — an unlikely outcome in the narrowly divided Senate.

Shelby said he views $1.6 billion as a floor in negotiations, which could increase if Democrats want to do some horse-trading.
mysteryman841
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2018 03:32 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
[Trump's Wall is an impossibility. The terrain itself is not conducive to building any permanent type structure, not can one be built that cannot be swam around. /quote]

Have you ever been to the Great Wall of China??

That was built thousands of years ago.
Are you saying we cant do it now?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2018 05:04 pm
@mysteryman841,
That's silly.

The great wall of China was effective at repelling organized military forces (particularly on horseback). It was never intended to stop individuals from entering the territory.

An individual, or a small group of people, with a ladder could easily scale the Great Wall of China.


mysteryman841
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2018 05:39 pm
@maxdancona,
I'm talking about the terrain it was built across.
Mountains, deserts, forests, etc.
If it could be done a thousand years ago, we can do it now.

The only obstacle is that the left doesn't want it.
If the wall is built, that slows ILLEGAL immigration way down, and the dems will actually have to start worrying about US citizens instead of illegals.
neptuneblue
 
  4  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2018 06:39 pm
@mysteryman841,
Ramos: 40% of undocumented immigrants come by air
By Jon Greenberg on Tuesday, September 8th, 2015 at 1:19 p.m.

Univision and Fusion news anchor Jorge Ramos discussed a U.S.-Mexico border wall on Fox News (screengrab)

Depending on which poll you believe, between 40 and 50 percent of Americans support building a wall or fence along the border with Mexico. Jorge Ramos, a news anchor on Univision and Fusion, makes no secret of his disdain for the idea.

A few days after attracting widespread notice after being thrown out of a Donald Trump press conference while asking a question on immigration policy (he was later allowed back in), Ramos accepted an invitation to appear on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor on Sept. 2, 2015. Host Bill O’Reilly’s first question pressed him on the issue of a border wall.

O’Reilly: "You don’t want a border wall. You don’t want that. Why not?"

Ramos: "It’s a completely absurd idea. Why would you want to build a 1,900-mile wall between Mexico and the United States if almost 40 percent of all immigrants come by plane and they overstay their visas?"

Ramos is far from the first person to deploy the statistic that 40 percent of unauthorized immigrants come into the country under a legal visa and then stay beyond its expiration date. Two Republican presidential candidates, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have said the same thing. When we checked Rubio’s claim, we rated it Mostly True.

However, Ramos’ statement adds the wrinkle that these people typically arrive by plane to rebut the notion that a wall would stop unauthorized immigration. As it turns out, it's hard to prove how they travel.

Actually, 40 percent might be too low

The key research on "overstays" -- the working term for this group of unauthorized immigrants Ramos had in mind -- was undertaken in 1997 by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS estimated that overstays accounted for 41 percent of the undocumented.

Here we’ll add a bit of complexity. Immigration researchers divide the undocumented into two groups -- overstays and "entries without inspection." The first group might have a student, temporary work or tourist visa. The second group never went through any review.

Robert Warren -- who helped with that work at the INS and now is a senior fellow at the Center for Migration Studies, a research group founded by Catholic missionaries -- told PunditFact that not only does the balance between the two still hold, it has likely tilted toward the overstays.

"Since 2000, arrivals from Mexico, who are about 85-90 percent 'entries without inspection,' have plummeted, while overstays have increased, or stayed at about their historical levels," Warren said.

Warren said the shift likely stems from U.S. efforts that have made it harder to enter by land.

Analysts with two other organizations, the Pew Research Center and the Migration Policy Institute, largely back Warren’s overall estimates.

"It is likely that the 40 percent figure is still valid and, if anything, the share of unauthorized immigrants who are visa overstayers is probably higher than 40 percent," said Jeffrey Passel at Pew.

Marc Rosenblum at the Migration Policy Institute said his group uses a wider range for overstays of one-third to one-half. While he’s comfortable with that, he noted it ultimately goes back to data collected by Pew in 2006.

"It’s widely cited and generally accepted as accurate, but it should be taken with a grain of salt because the estimate is old and characterized by some uncertainty," he said.

Rosenblum said the Department of Homeland Security has developed a way to count overstays who arrive by air or sea, but so far, the department doesn’t seem to have settled on an approach for people who enter at a land port of entry, such as the southern border. We reached out to a couple of agencies within the department, but did not get any information.

Guesstimating the fliers

If the 40 percent stat is defensible, the point that all those people arrive by air is much less so. In fact, the limited data we have suggests that whatever fraction flies into the country, it is less than 40 percent.

When we asked Ramos for his source, he pointed us to a 2006 report by Pew. However, while that assessment provides the 40 percent figure, it gives no details on the fraction that arrived in an airplane.

All of the experts we asked said they could only provide a gut assessment on this question.

"I have no information" on the form of transportation used by overstayers at the time of their entry, Pew’s Passel said, "but I suspect that most of them do arrive by plane."

But Rosenblum noted that overstays represent about 16 percent of unauthorized Mexican immigrants, about 27 percent of unauthorized Central Americans, and about 91 percent of all other unauthorized immigrants. Using his group’s estimates of the unauthorized population, that translates into about a third of all overstays coming from Mexico and Central America, and about two-thirds coming from the rest of the world.

"Many, but not all, of the Mexican and Central American overstayers likely arrived legally by land," Rosenblum said. "Almost all of the other overstayers likely arrived by air."

So let’s assume that none of the Mexican and Central American arrivals came by air, but all of the other arrivals did fly in. Since two-thirds of the overstays come from places other than Mexico and Central America, that would mean that two-thirds of the overstay population (the 40 percent figure) came by air, or about 27 percent.

That’s not far from the result Warren got using a slightly different approach. He estimated that at least one-third of the undocumented population arrives by air.

Ramos acknowledged the lack of hard data behind his statement.

"The important fact is that around 40 percent came legally and then overstayed their visas," he said. "How they got here is another matter."

A final note: The rationale for building a wall between the United States and Mexico is strongly linked to the idea that illegal immigration is fundamentally a problem of a porous southern border. Ramos, Rubio and Bush use the 40 percent figure to highlight that a large portion of the problem lies elsewhere. However, Rosenblum noted that does not make the two groups equivalent.

"One difference between overstayers and those who enter unlawfully is that overstayers have been screened and found admissible at least once, while those who enter another way -- mostly by crossing the border, or passing illegally through a port of entry -- could include people who would be inadmissible, because they have committed serious crimes or are on a security watchlist," Rosenblum said. "This is a legitimate reason to be more focused on illegal entries than overstayers."

Our ruling

Ramos said that about 40 percent of undocumented immigrants fly into the country and overstay their visas. While there is some evidence that overstays represent about 40 percent of the unauthorized population, and perhaps more, the best estimates of those flying in -- which are admittedly a bit shaky -- could be as low as one-quarter or somewhat more than one-third. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2018 07:09 pm
@mysteryman841,
Quote:
The only obstacle is that the left doesn't want it.


There are lots of conservative reasons to oppose the wall including fiscal responsibility and a hatred of eminent domain.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 12:39 am
@mysteryman841,
The greatest obstacle is recruiters of cheap labor, and the corporations in agribusiness who want that labor. Americans don't do stoop labor, so illegals who can survive the horrors of crossing the border readily find work that Americans don't do. Those who recruit illegals and those who profit from their labor are willing to spend money on congressional elections. It seems to me that you may have drunk the far right kool aid.
mysteryman841
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 12:08 pm
@Setanta,
I agree with you about the cheap labor.
Which is why I believe that any company that hires illegals should be fined by the govt up to $5000 per day per illegal immigrant working there, and the illegals should also be arrested and deported.

I don't agree that Americans wont do stoop labor, I think its more a case of agribusiness not wanting to pay for it.
Americans wont do it for what illegals get paid, and with no workers comp, insurance, or anything else American workers have come to expect.

As for the cost of the wall itself, that can be covered several ways.

Fines collected from employers that hire illegals, taxes on the money illegals send home, etc.
Also, the money we would save by not housing, feeding, or any other benefits provided to illegals by our govt, including the cost of incarcerating criminals would help pay for the wall.

Also, by canceling foreign aid to all the countries that illegals come from, that alone would pay for the wall.


However, I do have one major concern about the wall.

The East German govt built the Berlin wall ostensibly to keep westerners out, and we all know what it became.
I am slightly concerned that a left leaning govt in DC would use the wall to keep Americans in, the way the East German govt used the wall.
CalamityJane
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 12:16 pm
@mysteryman841,
You are not only delusional, you don't know history well either.

ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 12:18 pm
@mysteryman841,
mysteryman841 wrote:

I agree with you about the cheap labor.

Which is why I believe that any company that hires illegals should be fined


and that's where the whole thing falls apart before it even starts

follow the money trail on this

it's an interesting exercise


https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/14/lawmakers-go-easy-employers-undocumented-workers/

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/it-takes-two-immigration-and-the-rule-of-law/

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html

and who was stumping on this back in 2005?

https://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0516/p09s01-coop.html
0 Replies
 
mysteryman841
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 12:18 pm
@CalamityJane,
What part did I get wrong?
https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/berlin-wall




On August 13, 1961, the Communist government of the German Democratic Republic (GDR, or East Germany) began to build a barbed wire and concrete “Antifascistischer Schutzwall,” or “antifascist bulwark,” between East and West Berlin. The official purpose of this Berlin Wall was to keep Western “fascists” from entering East Germany and undermining the socialist state, but it primarily served the objective of stemming mass defections from East to West.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 12:22 pm
@mysteryman841,
mysteryman841 wrote:
the money we would save by not housing, feeding, or any other benefits provided to illegals by our govt


you might want to take a look at the numbers on this - and compare it to what the migrants add to the US economy

the US isn't doing much on the housing/feeding/'benefits side of the scale

__

the US economy may have trouble surviving your plan
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 12:43 pm
@mysteryman841,
mysteryman841 wrote:

I don't agree that Americans wont do stoop labor, I think its more a case of agribusiness not wanting to pay for it.

Here is a story about a celery farmer who can't find workers at $21/hour. The reality is that in this market, there are plenty of jobs that don't require working long days in the sun in the middle of nowhere. The whole article is a good read, but a thought provoking quote:
Farmer Tom Deardorff wrote:
We've shifted away from the most labor-intensive crops - so things like vine-ripe tomatoes, we no longer grow anymore. We've also shifted a large amount of our production down into Mexico. So basically, the fact of the matter is that a foreign-born person is going to be harvesting your fruits and vegetables. So the decision is - do we want to do that within the United States, or do we want to have that foreign-born worker stay in his country and harvest your fruits and vegetables? So based on what we've seen in the political environment over the last 15 and 20 years, we have decided to go down there into Mexico.

mysteryman841 wrote:

Also, the money we would save by not housing, feeding, or any other benefits provided to illegals by our govt, including the cost of incarcerating criminals would help pay for the wall.

But studies show that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits and many illegal immigrants don't claim the benefits they are entitled to (and paid for with their taxes.) Not only do you lose all that economic activity, you lose all those taxes.
mysteryman841 wrote:

Also, by canceling foreign aid to all the countries that illegals come from, that alone would pay for the wall.

I think you are off the mark by at least an order of magnitude. Looking at the top three sources of immigrants, foreign aid to Mexico, 87 million. El Salvador, $75 million, Guatamala $297 million (primarily for to combat the drug trade). You aren't even up to a half billion and if you stop that money, the people will just be more desperate to come to the US and the drug trade will have even less to worry about than it does now.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 01:53 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
“He’s focused on border security. And like all presidents, he wants it done now. But we’re part of the legislative process. It’s slower and deliberate," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), who met with Trump.


Gee, whodathunk, senators as stupid as Trump.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 01:54 pm
@maxdancona,
Trump supporters are not known for their brain power.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 02:06 pm
@mysteryman841,
The companies who employ illegals put lots of cash into congressional campaign coffers. No such bill would ever be passed.

The wall in Berlin was built to keep Germans from the east in, not to keep Germans from the west out. People in the FRG had no desire to go east.
mysteryman841
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 03:14 pm
@Setanta,
I posted a link a few comments ago, just scroll up.

The official purpose of the wall was to keep western "fascists" out of East Berlin.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Aug, 2018 03:18 pm
@mysteryman841,
Quote:
The official purpose of the wall was to keep western "fascists" out of East Berlin.


"official" really makes you cream your jeans, doesn't it, mm? That's just what the military loves.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The wall
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2018 at 01:03:52