Why a Wall Won't Stop Immigration
Why a Wall Won't Stop Immigration
I just finished watching the newest episode of Adam Ruins Everything; its primary focus was on illegal immigration in America and the flaws of the system in place. Here's a small part of the episode that they released on YouTube about why a wall won't fix America's immigration problem - I suggest anyone who is interested in this to watch the full episode.
Sources used in the episode
Sources used in the episode
"It would have to stretch over 2,000 miles of terrain."
Great wall of china is 5500 miles long. 2000 would be a piece of cake.
"And all of that destruction would be monstrously expensive. It would cost a whopping $12 to $25 billion just to build"
Good thing Mexico will be paying for it then.
"It'd easily be one of the most expensive single pieces of infrastructure in American history. It would cost as much as 20 Hoover Dams or the entirety of NASA's annual budget. "
And far more valuable than putting a man on the moon or Mars.
"Because it's estimated that between 27 and 40 percent of all undocumented immigrants came here on planes."
Nirvana fallacy.
"Mexico's economy is doing quite well and population growth has slowed way down, so there isn't much pressure to immigrate. Illegal border crossings are actually at an all-time low."
500,000 thousand per year is 500,000 too many.
"The fact is, they're already here. Nearly one out of every 30 people in America is an unauthorized immigrant."
See the above.
Great wall of china is 5500 miles long. 2000 would be a piece of cake.
"And all of that destruction would be monstrously expensive. It would cost a whopping $12 to $25 billion just to build"
Good thing Mexico will be paying for it then.
"It'd easily be one of the most expensive single pieces of infrastructure in American history. It would cost as much as 20 Hoover Dams or the entirety of NASA's annual budget. "
And far more valuable than putting a man on the moon or Mars.
"Because it's estimated that between 27 and 40 percent of all undocumented immigrants came here on planes."
Nirvana fallacy.
"Mexico's economy is doing quite well and population growth has slowed way down, so there isn't much pressure to immigrate. Illegal border crossings are actually at an all-time low."
500,000 thousand per year is 500,000 too many.
"The fact is, they're already here. Nearly one out of every 30 people in America is an unauthorized immigrant."
See the above.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
Great wall of china is 5500 miles long. 2000 would be a piece of cake.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
Good thing Mexico will be paying for it then.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
And far more valuable than putting a man on the moon or Mars.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
500,000 thousand per year is 500,000 too many.
Originally Posted by Aborted
The Great wall of China took over 200 years and 800,000 people to build, with most being civilians forced to work day and night in unsafe conditions, not at all a piece of cake.
How exactly do you think this is going to work? Ring up Mexico and send them a bill? Outside of war, what possible action could the US take to force Mexico to pay for it? Sanctions would hurt us even more than it would hurt Mexico due to how much trade we conduct with them. The wall would be on US soil, there is nothing legally or governmental we could do to force their hand without breaking international treaties. It's not 1950 anymore, the US is no longer a rebellious teenager who bought their first gun and is itching to shoot it.
1. Levy a wire transfer tax on all funds sent to Mexico.
2. Increase the cost of Visas on people coming to the US from Mexico.
3. Charge a tariff on goods coming over the border from Mexico.
4. increase fees on all border crossing cards.
5. increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico.
6. Cut the foreign aid to Mexico.
How? The burden of illegal immigrants isn't getting any higher, and a vast majority of illegal residents immigrated before 2000; if all illegal immigration stopped right now, we wouldn't be any better off.
Besides, the influx of workforce has positive effects on the economy as well.
Why? Based solely on principle? Because the economic effects are not nearly as negative as most anti-immigration sources cite.
Originally Posted by Learnding
If he builds a wall, ladders and rope will go up in price.
If he builds a wall, ladders and rope will go up in price.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
Yep, walls don't work. Just like shoes don't work because they become untied, and buckets don't work because they can spill...
Guess I won't be wasting my time debating your dumb ass.
Originally Posted by Aborted
Well it's confirmed, you're fucking retarded.
Guess I won't be wasting my time debating your dumb ass.
Guess I won't be wasting my time debating your dumb ass.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
Good thing We've got 2200 years of technology to help out since then.
Now let's go through these "points that caused utter destruction"
Originally Posted by PTMartin
1. Levy a wire transfer tax on all funds sent to Mexico.
But no for real, that "tax" would pale in comparison to the price of the wall.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
2. Increase the cost of Visas on people coming to the US from Mexico.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
3. Charge a tariff on goods coming over the border from Mexico.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
4. increase fees on all border crossing cards.
5. increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico.
5. increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
6. Cut the foreign aid to Mexico.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
cost of government benefits, etc. far outweighs any alleged "positive effects".
Cheap Labor = more people employed.
More people employed = more spending.
More spending = more taxes being collected by the government.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
It's a disaster that continues
Originally Posted by PTMartin
Yep, walls don't work. Just like shoes don't work because they become untied, and buckets don't work because they can spill...
Lol wut.
Originally Posted by Confluency
Who would regulate this?
Is it full proof? What about loopholes?
Trump didn't pay taxes so why exactly should someone sending money to mexico have to?
But no for real, that "tax" would pale in comparison to the price of the wall.
Ah yes, there is an immigration problem so what's the answer? Let's make it more unnattractive to immigrate to the US via legal ways, and make it more attractive to come illegally. What a fucking solid plan!
Do you understand economics or nah? Tariffs = more money being spent by the exporter, more money being spent by the exporter = increased prices of goods. It'd counteract itself.
As stated before, it really fucking boggles my mind how you can state illegal immigration is such a problem and in the same breath wish to make it harder for LEGALS to enter the country lmfao. You're truly a fucking idiot.
Foreign aid to mexico is a couple hundred million. You think the decades upon decades of maintaining the wall, and the initial building process will be covered by 400 million? Are you daft?
Most illegals pay taxes, and the ones that don't still pay taxes on the things they buy.
Cheap Labor = more people employed.
More people employed = more spending.
More spending = more taxes being collected by the government.
More people employed = more spending.
More spending = more taxes being collected by the government.
Lol wut.
Originally Posted by TonySK
Immigration from Mexico has been declining, they are not the main source of illegal immigrants. So why have them pay for the wall?
Originally Posted by PTMartin
The government, just like they regulate all other taxes and fees levied.
Nirvana fallacy. Look it up.
To pay for the wall. Illegals come here, take jobs from citizens, drive down wages, and send the money back to Mexico.
Last year, more than $120 billion was sent to Mexico. At 10% the wall is paid for in 10 years with just this source of income alone. Add in all the other ones and the wall is paid for in half that time or less, and annual maintenance is perpetually covered.
Let's make it more unattractive to come legally and illegally.
Apparently more so than you. Increased cost of imports = more competitive domestic goods = more demand = more jobs and higher wages for citizens.
Oops, you really didn't think it all through before starting the name calling, did you? The name calling is a sure sign you've lost the argument.
See the above. The foreign aid alone will cover the annual maintenance. The savings to the tax payers in illegal benefits and reduced crime alone will cover the annual maintenance. Funding the wall and maintaining the wall with no additional expense to the US tax payer is easily done.
No they don't. Does, "working under the table" mean anything to you? They do kick in a bit from sales taxes to the states, but add up the cost of crime, incarceration, free medical, and education, and it's a net loss by far.
Cheap labor = low wages. Perfect for big business. Not so good for for the wage earner.
Nirvana fallacy. Look it up.
Because they are the main source of illegal immigrants
Nirvana fallacy. Look it up.
To pay for the wall. Illegals come here, take jobs from citizens, drive down wages, and send the money back to Mexico.
Last year, more than $120 billion was sent to Mexico. At 10% the wall is paid for in 10 years with just this source of income alone. Add in all the other ones and the wall is paid for in half that time or less, and annual maintenance is perpetually covered.
Let's make it more unattractive to come legally and illegally.
Apparently more so than you. Increased cost of imports = more competitive domestic goods = more demand = more jobs and higher wages for citizens.
Oops, you really didn't think it all through before starting the name calling, did you? The name calling is a sure sign you've lost the argument.
See the above. The foreign aid alone will cover the annual maintenance. The savings to the tax payers in illegal benefits and reduced crime alone will cover the annual maintenance. Funding the wall and maintaining the wall with no additional expense to the US tax payer is easily done.
No they don't. Does, "working under the table" mean anything to you? They do kick in a bit from sales taxes to the states, but add up the cost of crime, incarceration, free medical, and education, and it's a net loss by far.
Cheap labor = low wages. Perfect for big business. Not so good for for the wage earner.
Nirvana fallacy. Look it up.
Because they are the main source of illegal immigrants
Originally Posted by TonySK
It has been proven that more are returning to their country than coming in.
But the number of illegals was shocking, surging to at least 550,000 in 2014 and 2015, up from 350,000 in 2012 and 2013. That's the size of Albuquerque, N.M.
The report dispels projections that immigration — legal and illegal — would drop due to a pull back in immigrants from Mexico. Instead, it has grown with new countries in Latin America, Cuba and Asia fueling the surge.
The report dispels projections that immigration — legal and illegal — would drop due to a pull back in immigrants from Mexico. Instead, it has grown with new countries in Latin America, Cuba and Asia fueling the surge.
And again, Mexico and Latin America are still the biggest source of illegal immigrants, followed by East and South Asia. I'm all for shutting down those illegals too. They mainly overstay their visas so greater monitoring and control over that is crucial. That doesn't take away the value of the wall though, or the rationale for having Mexico and Mexicans pay for it.
http://cis.org/New-Data-Immigration-...-2014-and-2015
Originally Posted by PTMartin
If true, that would be great, and a wall would accelerate that ratio. Unfortunately, it's not true.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ce...rticle/2592688
And again, Mexico and Latin America are still the biggest source of illegal immigrants, followed by East and South Asia. I'm all for shutting down those illegals too. They mainly overstay their visas so greater monitoring and control over that is crucial. That doesn't take away the value of the wall though, or the rationale for having Mexico and Mexicans pay for it.
http://cis.org/New-Data-Immigration-...-2014-and-2015
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ce...rticle/2592688
And again, Mexico and Latin America are still the biggest source of illegal immigrants, followed by East and South Asia. I'm all for shutting down those illegals too. They mainly overstay their visas so greater monitoring and control over that is crucial. That doesn't take away the value of the wall though, or the rationale for having Mexico and Mexicans pay for it.
http://cis.org/New-Data-Immigration-...-2014-and-2015
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/1...ng-to-the-u-s/
Immigration from Mexico has been declining, they are not the main source of illegal immigrants. So why have them pay for the wall? You are not accounting for Haitians, Chinese, Salvadorian, Honduran, Cuban, and others coming from different countries.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
Nirvana fallacy.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
To pay for the wall. Illegals come here, take jobs from citizens, drive down wages, and send the money back to Mexico.
The wages are low because minimum wage is low. Even if the wages did increase, the goods they produce would also increase and it would counteract itself. If you need an example, google the failed Alabama immigration law. Americans do not want to work dirty and hard jobs, it's the general culture of the country.
So you're simply wrong,low wages mean cheaper goods allowing the average American to purchase low priced items.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
Last year, more than $120 billion was sent to Mexico. At 10% the wall is paid for in 10 years with just this source of income alone. Add in all the other ones and the wall is paid for in half that time or less, and annual maintenance is perpetually covered.
That missing 10% would most certainly destroy the economy of Mexico. And what's even worse is we'd be using that 10% to build a wall that won't work. If illegals want to enter a country, they will find a way.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
Apparently more so than you. Increased cost of imports = more competitive domestic goods = more demand = more jobs and higher wages for citizens.
Things aren't black and white, when there is an action there is a reaction.
Yeah, let's fucking cut foreign aid to one if our biggest trading partners. As said before, an action will always have a reaction. And when your action is cutting foreign aid to one of your biggest trade partners you can most certainly expect a surprise in return.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
See the above. The foreign aid alone will cover the annual maintenance. The savings to the tax payers in illegal benefits and reduced crime alone will cover the annual maintenance. Funding the wall and maintaining the wall with no additional expense to the US tax payer is easily done.
Originally Posted by PTMartin
Cheap labor = low wages. Perfect for big business. Not so good for for the wage earner.
TL;DR If your answer is to economically punish your biggest trade partner to pay for a wall that will not even remotely solve the problem it's being built for, it's not going to work out very well.
Originally Posted by TonySK
My point is that you are strictly focusing on Mexican immigrants when there are people from around the world who are entering as well.
Originally Posted by Confluency
It's ironic because although there aren't any perfect solutions, a wall most certainly is not close to being the best one.
Cool, they drive down wages for low skilled jobs. Getting rid of illegals won't increase wages. For example you can simply look at Alabama and how they've pretty much gotten rid of the majority of illegals and now they can't find people to work the cheap paying dirty jobs.
The wages are low because minimum wage is low.
Even if the wages did increase, the goods they produce would also increase and it would counteract itself.
So you're simply wrong,low wages mean cheaper goods allowing the average American to purchase low priced items.
That missing 10% would most certainly destroy the economy of Mexico.
And what's even worse is we'd be using that 10% to build a wall that won't work. If illegals want to enter a country, they will find a way.
Of the 51 fortified boundaries built between countries since the end of World War II, around half were constructed between 2000 and 2014.
Why? Because walls do work.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...mexico/483156/
Oh, and ironically, Mexico is building a 'wall'... on its southern border (to keep illegal immigrants out). Perhaps even more ironic, The US is sending $75m in equipment and training to help stop Central Americans from crossing illegally into Mexico.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...ss-who-paid-it
Uh, me no tinks u understand trade relatons between the U.S and Mexico. The US is at a trade deficit with Mexico at about 50B. If the U.S were to increase Tariffs then Mexico would quite literally do the same thing.
Yeah, let's fucking cut foreign aid to one if our biggest trading partners. As said before, an action will always have a reaction. And when your action is cutting foreign aid to one of your biggest trade partners you can most certainly expect a surprise in return.
Perfect for all buisness, illegals take the jobs americans statistically refuse to take and in return the goods are cheaper and that " wage earner" can buy low.
TL;DR If your answer is to economically punish your biggest trade partner to pay for a wall that will not even remotely solve the problem it's being built for, it's not going to work out very well.
Several European countries have erected fences to keep migrants out, and, according to the numbers, every case appears to have a large impact.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...art-has-answer
This thread is closed for replies.
