Actually, we can’t afford not to build the Wall

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts

Posts

Total: 163
Topic's author
#1
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
Truth is, the Democrats aren’t leveling with the public about the billions we are already forced to spend on shelters, food, diapers, medical care and child care for migrants sneaking across the border and claiming asylum. Not to mention the costs of public schooling and health care provided free to migrants once they are released into communities.
By deterring illegal crossings, the Wall will pay for itself in less than two years. It’s a bargain.
interesting, considering it's not coming from a right wing source
  • Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for information due to proper sourcing and well respected journalists/editors.
I was a bit on the fence (pun intended) on the issue, but not after ready that article.



#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Then Trump devised a “Remain-in-Mexico” arrangement to make Mexico the waiting room for asylum seekers. As long as they are south of the border, the US doesn’t have to house them, and they have no “right” to public schooling and emergency medical care on our tab. The program, if successful, will save American taxpayers a bundle. It’s one way Mexico is already helping to pay for the Wall.

Promises made, promises kept.
#3
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
I would just like to point out, before anything else, that you literally just mistook the New York Post (conservative) for the New York Times (liberal). How you made such an elementary blunder, I do not know.
#4
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Do you feel as though a huge unmanned structure would prevent crossings to make it worth while?

56K a year is the cost, give or take, of a border patrol officer, time and and equipment depending.


I just don't have confidence in an edifice being a real deterrent, thats all.  
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FaustianJustice
How much is the current price of a coyote trip? Will the wall affect the 401K of these Coyotes?
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I think Coyote fees have gone up from 4000 to 10,000 since Trump got elected according to some sources. Might be 20k after the wall is built.
#7
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@FaustianJustice
Do you feel as though a huge unmanned structure would prevent crossings to make it worth while?

56K a year is the cost, give or take, of a border patrol officer, time and and equipment depending.
Is this a joke comment? You're worried about providing a job that costs tens of thousands of dollars? You do realise that the U.S. taxpayer has to foot the bill of illegal immigrants getting public education, welfare benefits, and other benefits and services, all to the tune of roughly $54.5 BILLION a year? (https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer). You could theoretically hire 700,000 of these border patrol people (which is WAY more than necessary, but I'm making a point), and if they kept 90% of the illegal immigrants out, you'd still be in the black.

This isn't even to mention the social cost of having illegal Mexicans in your country. Hispanics tend to vote in favour of 2nd/3rd World policies, such as the banning of "hate speech", and having a bigger government with more services (i.e. freebies) (http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/28/political-ideology-in-america-by-race/).

I just don't have confidence in an edifice being a real deterrent, thats all.  
Your objections are indicative of someone who doesn't know what on Earth he's writing about.

Mexico itself has a border wall to keep Guatemalans out.

The Hungarian border fence was so effective at keeping unwanted Serbians out that the true number of Serbians coming in was too small to show on the chart (https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2015/10/29/hold-hungarian-border-fence-so-effective-illegal-immigrants-are-now-at-pre-migrant-crisis-levels/).

The Israeli border fence has deterred terrorism to an effective degree (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/background-and-overview-of-israel-s-security-fence#2).

Even if the fence kept 50% of the illegals out, which would make it by far the worst wall out of all those above (and arguably the worst in human history), you'd still be saving $27.25 Billion.

Your lack of confidence is born from ignorance.
#8
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
This isn't even to mention the social cost of having illegal Mexicans in your country. Hispanics tend to vote in favour of 2nd/3rd World policies, such as the banning of "hate speech", and having a bigger government with more services (i.e. freebies) (http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/28/political-ideology-in-america-by-race/).
America is fairly unique in its unregulated approach to hate speech among other 1st world countries. This indicates to me that regulation of hatespeech is more of a 1st world policy, or at least there's an equivalence between 1st, 2nd and 3rd world views, with America being an outlier in this overall trend. Why do you think differently?

#9
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@dustryder
America is fairly unique in its unregulated approach to hate speech among other 1st world countries. This indicates to me that regulation of hatespeech is more of a 1st world policy, or at least there's an equivalence between 1st, 2nd and 3rd world views, with America being an outlier in this overall trend. Why do you think differently?
"Hate speech" is a political tool used to leverage resources for political groups. It is antithetical to freedom of speech, and thus stifles a country's progress/understanding because new ideas/truths cannot be expressed.

Sure, not every 1st world country has freedom of speech. My country, Australia, does not have freedom of speech, yet it constantly ranks in the top escalations in quality of life calculations. Freedom of speech is a 1st world policy, but doesn't in itself make a country 1st world. 


#10
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Fraser Anning, Poorlean Handmedown. If Aus didn't have free speech you wouldn't hear from those fascists.
#11
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@disgusted
Fraser Anning, Poorlean Handmedown. If Aus didn't have free speech you wouldn't hear from those fascists.
Lol you bloody idiot. This is not a matter for debate. Australia does not have a Bill of Rights that allows freedom of speech. If people are allowed to say controversial things, then that's because they're not being prosecuted, rather than being allowed to. You're basically saying that people are allowed to jay-walk because some people get away with it -- utterly stupid and factually wrong argument.

#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Swagnarok
+1 swag-  if u r confusing the NY post and The NY Times then there’s not really to talk about. 
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
I agree. Blanket censorship of conservative media is the rule, not the exception.
#14
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Both legal and illegal immigrants are human beings and human beings tend to.use vehicles as their primary means of transport. Vehicles like planes and boats. Most immigration (legal or illegal) will be completely unaffected by any wall fence ditch or moat we decide to construct.
#15
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I give up, its your cheese, you describe the smell.
#16
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
"Is this a joke comment? You're worried about providing a job that costs tens of thousands of dollars? You do realise that the U.S. taxpayer has to foot the bill of illegal immigrants getting public education, welfare benefits, and other benefits and services, all to the tune of roughly $54.5 BILLION a year? "


Shaddup and answer the question.  You need to patrol 2K miles of wall, now, in perpetuity.  How much have you offset?

"Mexico itself has a border wall to keep Guatemalans out. " --- makes you wonder how the caravan got past Mexico, then.

"
Even if the fence kept 50% of the illegals out, which would make it by far the worst wall out of all those above (and arguably the worst in human history), you'd still be saving $27.25 Billion.

Your lack of confidence is born from ignorance." 

--- MORE than half the illegals here are because they overstayed a visa, dimwit.  My lack of confidence is born from watching Israeli forces -continue- to battle (literally battle) an group of militarized (wonder how that happened....) forces outside said walls.  That and this new fangled thing called "ropes", "chains", and "internal combustion engines".  

You are asking for the largest modern day edifice yet built by man to be manned.  24 7.  Please don't let that escape your thinking.

You need to pay people to patrol the wall.  That is the bottom line.  Said people will cost money, for as long as you would like to keep disastrous policy in force.

#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FaustianJustice
Might be a good time to invest in Coyote start-ups. Business is good for them. Demand is up and supply is down. Good pricing.
#18
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Both legal and illegal immigrants are human beings and human beings tend to.use vehicles as their primary means of transport. Vehicles like planes and boats. Most immigration (legal or illegal) will be completely unaffected by any wall fence ditch or moat we decide to construct.
Wow, another braindead argument -- this thread sure is attracting retardation.

Why don't we just leave all our house doors open because people can lock-pick! Oh right, locks are effective the majority of the time, so that's why people use them. It's just like border fences/walls, dumbass. Yes, sometimes people find ways to get around them. However, the vast majority of the time, the fences/walls work (see the latter half of the post: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1494?page=1&post_number=7)).

Finally, legal immigration isn't the issue a wall would fix, so there's no point in conflating that with illegal immigration.

#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10

#20
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
A large percentage of illegal immigrants arrive to the country by airport or sea port and simply overstay their visa. www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/aug/24/kevin-mccarthy/mostly-true-visa-overstays-account-half-all-people/ there is no point in discussing the economic social or political ramifications of building a huge impractical and exorbitantly expensive structure if said structure lacks efficacy.
#21
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Greyparrot
There’s little relation between American Conservatism and the present right wing of US Party politics. Generally, I’d call the Times more conservative than the Post. Most reporting suggests that  opinion @Post is neither ideological or interested in the truth, news and opinion are just  commodities pimped by Rupert Murdoch & Co.    but all that is neither here nor there. OP quotes one source then uses another source’ credentials. OP claims theOp-Ed  is liberal and reliable but using OPs own fact checker, the true source is neither. Can’t we agree that the argument is invalidated by the error?
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Whatever the percentage of non visa overstays, it's not insignificant in impact dollars to the taxpayer, and all areas need to be addressed.

If the USA develops a facial recognition tracking policy for all new visas without shoring up the border, its like bailing water out of a ship without plugging the obvious holes.
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
I mean sure we can invalidate it due to lack of credentials and authority, I guess.
Topic's author
#24
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
Alsa one perfect as yourself can't comprehend the flaws of us imperfect meer mortals, I would attempt to explain what a mistake is but how could you comprehend such a human flaw?  We are not worthy of your presence. 
#25
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Won't making legal immigration more problematic only encourage people to overstay their visa rather than trying to reenter the country? I submit to you that border security will have a direct inverse effect on the number of immigrants that follow legal channels. There is no point in discussing the economic social or political ramifications of funding and executing a huge impractical and exorbitantly expensive security measure that lacks efficacy.
#26
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
And you would know how. A bill of rights does not bestow freedom of speech, go ask MLK jnr. You numpty.
#27
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Locks only stop honest people numpty.
#28
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@FaustianJustice
Shaddup and answer the question.  
1) I already answered the question (not the new one you've asked), and 2) if I hadn't, shutting up would prevent me from answering it.

Once again, not off to a great start.

MORE than half the illegals here are because they overstayed a visa, dimwit. 
You need to learn how to format your posts because your quotations are a mess. I know it's super hard to highlight text and then click the 'Quote' icon, but please try a little bit harder.

Anyway, the wall isn't mean to end all illegal immigration issues lol. I'm not sure why you moved the goalpost to such a ridiculous extreme. Even if the wall stopped 20% of illegals from Mexico, which is a very harsh estimate considering what I argued before, that'd be about $11 Billion saved. Let's work with that.

The Serbian part of the Hungarian border cost around $100 million U.S. That part stretches roughly 100 miles. It is policed by 900 soldiers. Let's extrapolate this to the U.S. border. 2000 miles is 20 times 100 miles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_border_barrier). This will, approximately, cost around $2 billion. 900 x 20 = 18,000 soldiers needed to patrol the border. 18,000 x $56,000 (your stated annual wage for a border patrol staff member) is around $1 Billion dollars a year.

So, even in the first year, we have $1 Billion in wages plus the $2 Billion dollar wall being FAR LESS than the money saved on illegals coming in ($11 Billion, if the border wall prevents 20% of illegals).

Even if the wall stopped 10% or 5%, it would still be effective, and those are unrealistically generous assumptions (along with the 20%). Instead of claiming hypothetical problems, why don't you start dealing in the concrete reality?

My lack of confidence is born from watching Israeli forces -continue- to battle (literally battle) an group of militarized (wonder how that happened....) forces outside said walls.  That and this new fangled thing called "ropes", "chains", and "internal combustion engines".  
I'm sorry, but preventing terrorist attacks a bad thing now? The border wall demonstrably reduced the amount of terrorism Israel suffered. That's my argument. Don't derail this conversation when your arguments fly in the face of data -- not going to work with me.

You are asking for the largest modern day edifice yet built by man to be manned.  24 7.  Please don't let that escape your thinking.

You need to pay people to patrol the wall.  That is the bottom line.  Said people will cost money, for as long as you would like to keep disastrous policy in force.
I provided my evidence and data. All you've done is typed words. It's time to present your argument with data and evidence, or shut the hell up with your unjustified claims.


#29
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@secularmerlin
A large percentage of illegal immigrants arrive to the country by airport or sea port and simply overstay their visa. www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/aug/24/kevin-mccarthy/mostly-true-visa-overstays-account-half-all-people/ there is no point in discussing the economic social or political ramifications of building a huge impractical and exorbitantly expensive structure if said structure lacks efficacy.
Sorry, but you're not saying anything concrete.

Even if 95% illegal immigrants in the country either came in by airport/sea port (which is way more than your quoted 50%), and then overstayed their visas, the wall would still save the U.S money. Illegal immigrants are a massive financial drain on the U.S. economy (about $55 Billion a year), and building a wall to prevent just 5% would be economically wise. Read the response to the second quoted part here: (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1494?page=2&post_number=28). 


#30
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@disgusted
And you would know how. A bill of rights does not bestow freedom of speech, go ask MLK jnr. You numpty.

Locks only stop honest people numpty.
Troll detected and blocked.