Building the Wall

Ddawg wrote:

The billions spent on this wall will be a waste. It won't really be much help at all. The problem with illegal immigration today is not people crossing the Rio Grande.

Juan Francisco Lopes-Sanchez is the man that shot and killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco. He crossed the Rio Grande repeatedly. He had 7 felony convictions, had been from the U.S. 5 time. Was on probation in Texas at the time when he shot and killed Kate. He had 52 different jail records. If that was your daughter that was shot and killed by a repeat illegal criminal - would you want that wall built? Would you consider it a "waste of money?" How many American lives will be saved by building that wall? No one knows. But more that not building that wall.



An as for overstays - they are about 40% of the illegals. That number is considered pretty accurate, give or take, by the best guesstimates. Based on a study by PEW.



Based on the Israeli wall model (which is 99% effective), it will cost the $6.4 billion. So, tossing around the $20 billion figure ia generous, and probably high. Considering that illegals in the U.S. cost us $129 billion each year, and untold lives - it's a deal.

Anecdotal stories should not drive policy. If that were the case, we'd not want to repeal the ACA because of the lives it has saved by providing covered services for people who otherwise would not have received/afforded such services and these services, for example, detected cancer early enough to save the patient etc. I actually have a sister in law where that is the case. The murder of any person is horrible, but it is not fair to say that a built wall would have saved that one individual's life. And it is also not accurate to say that once the wall is built it will cut off all 99 percent, or even most illegal immigration. It won't. People seeking to enter the country will simply do so by other means. I would expect illegal overstays to grow exponentially once/if the wall is built. The Trump Administration throws around a $15 billion figure is my understanding, but whatever it is, it is in the billions. I think it will be a big waste of our taxpayer dollars. The loss of a cooperative ally to our south will,increase other costs in many different ways, too, some hard to calculate. Do you think Mexico will ever extradite another drug lord to the US? Highly doubt it.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Anecdotal stories should not drive policy.

You are beyond ridiculous. Anecdotal: An account that is not necessarily true or accurate. Based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.



It's incomprehensible to me that you can be so callous and cold. Kate Steinle was a real person. She is just 1 real, factual victim. That real, factual story is repeated hundreds of times every year across the USA. I can tell dozens, and dozens of stories about people - real people - being shot, stabbed, raped, mugged - by illegals. These are not anecdotal. These are not fabricated. I can tell you of 1 single event where 6 people were shot and killed by an illegal - I personally handled that and it was a bloody, gory affair. You sit in your ivory tower and theorize while real people have to deal with with wrecked lives.

I would love to see some actual analysis by economists that show the ROI on the wall.

What I hate is the oversimplification of things.



Trump says "Mexico is going to pay for the wall via a 20% tariff". Immediately the media, left, and even some GOPers (Hello, Mr. McCain) inform us "actually, that means Americans will be paying for the wall as that will just raise the cost of goods and shift the cost stateside." But the truth is much more nuanced than that--if it were that simple, Mexico would just shrug their shoulders and say, "So, what?" But that's not what Mexico did -- Mexico backed out of a meeting with Trump and vehemently argued against the notion, and the markets sent the peso tumbling. If the effect of a 20% tariff of Mexico-sourced goods was to merely shit the cost to US consumers, none of that happens.



Yes, the cost of goods from Mexico will escalate, but not by the full 20%, because Mexico has to remain competitive with good from everywhere else in the world. Their avacados still have to compete with avacados from Panama and California. Their corn has to compete with corn from the Asian steppes. Their automotive parts have to compete with automotive parts from Southeastern Asia. Their tequila even has to compete with all the other liquors on the shelves across America. Yeah, some prices are going up, but the brunt of it has to be borne by the Mexican producers, or else they'll be priced out of the market. The real onus of the 20% tariff is that it makes Mexico a manufacturing pariah. No new factories will be built there, and the existing manufacturing concerns will start looking back to the US, farther south, or even overseas. I'd be surprised if a 20% tariff resulted in any more than a 5% markup on goods from Mexico, but it would devastate the Mexican economy--just the threat of the tariff is already doing that. Trump has already cost the Mexican economny thousands of jobs with his Carrier-type deals to keep factories domestic. Every job that saves in America costs Mexico at least one, if not more, similar jobs.



Yeah, part of that cost shifts to us as consumers, but if a wall is going to be built, we either pay for it all, or we do something like this and pay a fraction of the cost in slightly more-expensive products, but far less than the full 20% mark-up.

Ddawg wrote:

Anecdotal stories should not drive policy.

You are beyond ridiculous. Anecdotal: An account that is not necessarily trump or accurate. Based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.



It's incomprehensible to me that you can be so callous and cold. Kate Steinle was a real person. She is just 1 real, factual victim. That real, factual story is repeated hundreds of times every year across the USA. I can tell dozens, and dozens of stories about people - real people - being shot, stabbed, raped, mugged - by illegals. These are not anecdotal. These are not fabricated. I can tell you of 1 single event where 6 people were shot and killed by an illegal - I personally handled that and it was a bloody, gory affair. You sit in your ivory tower and theorize while real people have to deal with with wrecked lives.

If you are going to call me beyond ridiculous, callous, cold, and camped out in an ivory tower, and if you're going to engage in straw man arguments instead of what I actually was discussing, I guess there's no basis to keep discussing. But for the record, your reporting about the atrocities committed by illegals is not what I was discussing and it is something I abhor and want to end too. I just happen to think building the wall further will not help. But if my efforts to raise that will bring vituperative vehemence back from you, well, there's no need to keep talking.

snoscythe wrote:
What I hate is the oversimplification of things.



Trump says "Mexico is going to pay for the wall via a 20% tariff". Immediately the media, left, and even some GOPers (Hello, Mr. McCain) inform us "actually, that means Americans will be paying for the wall as that will just raise the cost of goods and shift the cost stateside." But the truth is much more nuanced than that--if it were that simple, Mexico would just shrug their shoulders and say, "So, what?" But that's not what Mexico did -- Mexico backed out of a meeting with Trump and vehemently argued against the notion, and the markets sent the peso tumbling. If the effect of a 20% tariff of Mexico-sourced goods was to merely shit the cost to US consumers, none of that happens.



Yes, the cost of goods from Mexico will escalate, but not by the full 20%, because Mexico has to remain competitive with good from everywhere else in the world. Their avacados still have to compete with avacados from Panama and California. Their corn has to compete with corn from the Asian steppes. Their automotive parts have to compete with automotive parts from Southeastern Asia. Their tequila even has to compete with all the other liquors on the shelves across America. Yeah, some prices are going up, but the brunt of it has to be borne by the Mexican producers, or else they'll be priced out of the market. The real onus of the 20% tariff is that it makes Mexico a manufacturing pariah. No new factories will be built there, and the existing manufacturing concerns will start looking back to the US, farther south, or even overseas. I'd be surprised if a 20% tariff resulted in any more than a 5% markup on goods from Mexico, but it would devastate the Mexican economy--just the threat of the tariff is already doing that. Trump has already cost the Mexican economny thousands of jobs with his Carrier-type deals to keep factories domestic. Every job that saves in America costs Mexico at least one, if not more, similar jobs.



Yeah, part of that cost shifts to us as consumers, but if a wall is going to be built, we either pay for it all, or we do something like this and pay a fraction of the cost in slightly more-expensive products, but far less than the full 20% mark-up.

I think this is correct as a matter of economics. depending upon the scope of such a tarif (would it only be just Mexico? Would it cover just manufacturered products or all products like agricultural?) Mexico exporters, including Ford GM etc would have to shift markets. The Ford Focus made in Mexico goes up $5,000 if the tariff kicks in. It becomes much less competitive to other same class cars without doing anything. Does Ford drop the price or seek to sell those cars elsewhere in the world? I suspect Ford drops the price because the costs of labor are still so much lower. That means Ford is eating the tariff price more so than American consumers. But it does not mean the Mexican government is paying for the wall either. We actually export a lot to Mexico, mostly agricultural products. I suspect Mexico retailiates and imposes their own tariffs. Lots of consequences to consider.

I think a lot better method might be to tax money wire transfers from the US into Mexico.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

Anecdotal stories should not drive policy.

You are beyond ridiculous. Anecdotal: An account that is not necessarily trump or accurate. Based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.



It's incomprehensible to me that you can be so callous and cold. Kate Steinle was a real person. She is just 1 real, factual victim. That real, factual story is repeated hundreds of times every year across the USA. I can tell dozens, and dozens of stories about people - real people - being shot, stabbed, raped, mugged - by illegals. These are not anecdotal. These are not fabricated. I can tell you of 1 single event where 6 people were shot and killed by an illegal - I personally handled that and it was a bloody, gory affair. You sit in your ivory tower and theorize while real people have to deal with with wrecked lives.

If you are going to call me beyond ridiculous, callous, cold, and camped out in an ivory tower, and if you're going to engage in straw man arguments instead of what I actually was discussing, I guess there's no basis to keep discussing. But for the record, your reporting about the atrocities committed by illegals is not what I was discussing and it is something I abhor and want to end too. I just happen to think building the wall further will not help. But if my efforts to raise that will bring vituperative vehemence back from you, well, there's no need to keep talking.

That's fine. If you cannot see the need of stopping the flow of illegal people across out border - there is not need to discuss anything. You do live in a theoretical ivory tower with your rhetoric. I am down here in the trenches and I see the real carnage every week. It is non-stop human carnage and it's real. You call is "anecdotal."



Like it or not, Trump will build the wall. Whether it costs $10 billion, $15 billion, $20 billion, or $50 billion is incidental. The critical point is we need to control who comes into "our house". The point of government is to put the safety of it's citizens 1st and look out for their welfare. Trump will do that. Unfortunately, Obama really didn't care.

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

Anecdotal stories should not drive policy.

You are beyond ridiculous. Anecdotal: An account that is not necessarily trump or accurate. Based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.



It's incomprehensible to me that you can be so callous and cold. Kate Steinle was a real person. She is just 1 real, factual victim. That real, factual story is repeated hundreds of times every year across the USA. I can tell dozens, and dozens of stories about people - real people - being shot, stabbed, raped, mugged - by illegals. These are not anecdotal. These are not fabricated. I can tell you of 1 single event where 6 people were shot and killed by an illegal - I personally handled that and it was a bloody, gory affair. You sit in your ivory tower and theorize while real people have to deal with with wrecked lives.

If you are going to call me beyond ridiculous, callous, cold, and camped out in an ivory tower, and if you're going to engage in straw man arguments instead of what I actually was discussing, I guess there's no basis to keep discussing. But for the record, your reporting about the atrocities committed by illegals is not what I was discussing and it is something I abhor and want to end too. I just happen to think building the wall further will not help. But if my efforts to raise that will bring vituperative vehemence back from you, well, there's no need to keep talking.

That's fine. If you cannot see the need of stopping the flow of illegal people across out border - there is not need to discuss anything. You do live in a theoretical ivory tower with your rhetoric. I am down here in the trenches and I see the real carnage every week. It is non-stop human carnage and it's real. You call is "anecdotal."



Like it or not, Trump will build the wall. Whether it costs $10 billion, $15 billion, $20 billion, or $50 billion is incidental. The critical point is we need to control who comes into "our house". The point of government is to put the safety of it's citizens 1st and look out for their welfare. Trump will do that. Unfortunately, Obama really didn't care.

I'm not in some ivory tower. You don't know me one bit. You also don't know what the word anecdotal means in the context of what I was discussing. I respect your efforts in the trenches, but that does not make you an expert on what is the best way forward with respect to illegal immigration and it most assuredly does not authorize you to spew out pejorative terms like they're some cheap weapon. Of course Trump is going to build a wall. It is his right. He's the President. Your insight there is less than helpful. Whether it is a good idea is a different story. But you want to belittle instead. How little.

If users cannot make posts without resorting to name calling those users will find themselves in timeout from being allowed to post for a period of time.

hawkwing wrote:
If users cannot make posts without resorting to name calling those users will find themselves in timeout from being allowed to post for a period of time.

I respect your request.

hawkwing wrote:
If users cannot make posts without resorting to name calling those users will find themselves in timeout from being allowed to post for a period of time.

Does that apply to you too? Who puts you in timeout when you attack posters?

Ddawg wrote:

If users cannot make posts without resorting to name calling those users will find themselves in timeout from being allowed to post for a period of time.

Does that apply to you too? Who puts you in timeout when you attack posters?

Show me where I have.



And yes, when I go too far I get reigned in by Sno, Spiff, and a panel of users to help keep things going smooth.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
If users cannot make posts without resorting to name calling those users will find themselves in timeout from being allowed to post for a period of time.

Does that apply to you too? Who puts you in timeout when you attack posters?

Show me where I have.



And yes, when I go too far I get reigned in by Sno, Spiff, and a panel of users to help keep things going smooth.

Right.

Here's my worry: stopping illegal entry will create tons of jobs. All of a sudden we are a country of opportunity for all who want to work for it. I worry that there are two classes of people who will not want to work even when a good job is offered them. 1) Millenials - those who would rather sit on their Mom's couch and play video games all day instead of getting a job and 2) Multi-generational welfare recipients who are already being taken care of by the government. why would either of these groups want to work. I can forsee the possibility of welfare benefits being taken away if someone refuses to work when they can. But I don't think there is an answer for the enabled millenial who is in his mid-to-late twenties and being coddled by his mommy. That person never developed any job skills and would most likely lose his job due to constant tardiness and absenteeism. He would then go back to mommy telling her how hard it is out there. She would hold him close and give him some money to help ease the pain of losing his job.



A Counselor in my Bishopric told us a story yesterday in Priesthood. He works at one of these homes for troubled youth and his job is to teach these kids some responsibility via using horses. I won't get into all of that. But he had a particularly difficult teen he was working with last week. The kid was just flat out lazy. He was telling him that he needed to develop some skills and learn to work hard in order to take care of himself out in the world. When he finished talking to this kid, another youth came over to him as asked, "Don't you think you were a little too harsh talking to him that way?" This is the rising generation. their feelings are all that matter. So don't tell them they have to get a job. That would just hurt sooo much!

We have a lot of first-year scouts in our troop this year, so last weekend we did a "test" winter camp before we do the Klondike next month. This was done in a field in town (less than 5 minutes from our homes) with wall tents and wood stoves. The Klondike will be in the mountains with no cell coverage in unheated dome tents. Nevertheless, I had a scout who was warm all night, but when it came time to get out of his sleeping bag didn't want to put on his "cold" pants and didn't want to take off his boots to replace his athletic socks with wool socks. He had snow pants that he refused to put on. So he wandered around the campsite in longjohns and wet cotton socks for an hour, refusing to make the simple changes to make himself warm "put on your wool socks", "put on your snow pants". He eventually called his mom to come pick him up right when it was time to start breaking camp.



Unfortunately, I can't say this is an isolated incident or even limited to this one kid, and this is coming from a very blue-collar community where hard work and toughness are supposed to be emphasized. It's not as bad as it has been in past, more affluent wards, but it just makes it clear that parents are raising a nation of quitters without work ethic.

imuakahuku wrote:
Sort of keeping to the illegal immigrant vein, can someone tell me what jobs they do that Americans won't do? I hear it all the time and people seem to just ignore it when stated. I washed dishes when I was younger. I see college kids now washing dishes. I see Americans doing maid work. My father in law does yard work and he is not an illegal immigrant. It drives me crazy when I hear people debating and someone throws that out there like there are jobs that Americans won't do but the illegals will (mind you I am talking legal jobs), and nobody challenges them on it. Its like theY think, "well, I don't want to do it so I guess it is true". It is false and a lie and whenever someone says it they should be challenged on it. So if you are ever talking with a Progressive and they throw that out there, challenge them and then come tell all of us what they said.

it's just that outside of the very young, established citizens and residents are usually more likely to be able to get better (higher paying) jobs than those.

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:
But the point is - the illegals ADD to to crime. Why tolerate that?

Well everyone adds to crime rates. Why should we tolerate any of that? We could make America pristine again. Kick everyone out.

That is not true. I understand your tongue in cheek, sarcastic statement. It's just not true.

Yes, it is true. With all the federal, state, county, and city laws everyone is a criminal.

Ddawg wrote:

I don't buy that migrants are any more prone to violent crime than others in their economic situation. You're overstating your case there, notwithstaning your anecdotal evidence.

I'm not overstating anything. I'm telling you real world experiences. It happens repeatedly every week. Regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not. And, I have never said ALL illegal immigrants are criminals. Not even close. But some certainly are. Also, to say that poor people, in poor economic situations become criminals is a cop out - an excuse. It's not true. Lots of poor people do not act criminally. Though some do. It's case by case - person by person.

Yet you don't give any evidence that immigrants are more prone to criminal activity adjusted to economic status. You want it both ways - migrants are prone to criminal activity, but you have to take it case by case. Which is it?

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

But the point is - the illegals ADD to to crime. Why tolerate that?

Well everyone adds to crime rates. Why should we tolerate any of that? We could make America pristine again. Kick everyone out.

That is not true. I understand your tongue in cheek, sarcastic statement. It's just not true.

Yes, it is true. With all the federal, state, county, and city laws everyone is a criminal.

Ddawg wrote:

I don't buy that migrants are any more prone to violent crime than others in their economic situation. You're overstating your case there, notwithstaning your anecdotal evidence.

I'm not overstating anything. I'm telling you real world experiences. It happens repeatedly every week. Regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not. And, I have never said ALL illegal immigrants are criminals. Not even close. But some certainly are. Also, to say that poor people, in poor economic situations become criminals is a cop out - an excuse. It's not true. Lots of poor people do not act criminally. Though some do. It's case by case - person by person.

Yet you don't give any evidence that immigrants are more prone to criminal activity adjusted to economic status. You want it both ways - migrants are prone to criminal activity, but you have to take it case by case. Which is it?

Good grief - you are a confused man. Let me break out the crayons.



Question #1: Do any illegal aliens commit crime in the United States? Yes or No.

Knock it off Dawg, no one enjoys condescension.



Maybe politics itself should be put on a time-out here.