Border Union: Trump’s Border Wall Is a ‘Brilliant’ ‘Business Strategy’ to Save Taxpayers Billions
President Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall on the southern U.S. border is a “business strategy” – and it’s a “brilliant” one – the president of the Border Patrol Union says.
In a Fox News interview on Wednesday, union President Brandon Judd said that Trump’s wall won’t just keep Americans safe – it’ll also save taxpayers money and pay for itself with those savings. Judd explained that, in interviews, illegal aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol admit that they’re breaking into the U.S. to take advantage of its generous social programs:
“When we arrest people, we interview them and we ask them why are you coming to the United States? The vast majority of those individuals we arrest, they tell us they’re coming here for jobs, they’re telling us they’re coming here for the social programs – and they’re telling us they’re coming here because they know they’re going to be released if they claim asylum."
And, since those programs are funded by taxpayers, Trump’s border wall is actually a brilliant business strategy that will save Americans money, Judd said:
“And, when they talk about the social programs – you’re talking about the billions of dollars that federal and state governments spend on health care, on schooling, and all these different costs that illegal aliens cost taxpayers.”
“And, so when you look at what a wall will do, in allowing us to apprehend the vast majority of those individuals who are coming across the border, it will cut down on how much the taxpayer burden will be – which will then go straight into funding the wall.
“So, it’s a brilliant way to go about it. And, that’s the business strategy that President Trump is brings to the American people.”
Judd was reacting to a new analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies showing that, within 10 years, the border wall will pay for itself, if it prevents even 9-12% of illegal crossings, by saving taxpayers $12-15 billion.
If half of the illegal crossings are prevented, the study finds that taxpayers will save $64 billion in expenses like welfare, public education and refundable tax credits over 10 years. https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/border-union-trumps-border-wall-brilliant-business-strategy
Nice headline, except the are no facts to back it up. It is just a slogan. Not to mention the wall will never happen.
SAVE US MONEY? Give us a freaking break! HE SAID WE WOULDN'T PAY FOR THE WALL AT ALL, MEXICO WOULD. Trumpublicans can take their 'savings' and stick it where the sun don't shine! WHAT A BUNCH OF LIARS!
But,,,but... but... they're not actually lying...they're merely spewing forth "Alternative Facts"!
I don't care how you parse it, MOST US taxpayers do not want to pay for his wall. PERIOD. Not by taking money from this and that or believing a fantasy of how much money we will save. Bullshit. Republicans who want the wall can find private financing to do it. It isn't like you all haven't shown us how we get to pick and choose where each dollar goes. You refuse to pay for abortions, I refuse to pay for the wall. In any way, shape or form. Get used to it, you don't get special rights the rest of us don't get to have. Expect the rumble to become a roar. We ain't paying.
But....eh......psst......lib....(whispers.....Mexico will be paying for the wall. Remember?)
And the tax cut will pay for itself too, right HA?
Gladly, as long as everyone else gives up their cut too. I'm all for reversing the tax cut, but no, I'm not going to be a chump and give my tax break back while the 1% takes their much bigger cut while laughing at me. Nice try though Tex!
lets jut cut taxes to 0 then and the Gov will see an infinite increase in revenue. /s
The point of that tax cut in the 60s was to find the right balance between taxation and growth and economic stbility, that particular tax cut reduced the highest bracket from 91% to 70%. Since then it has been reduced more and more until the reduction is not longer growth positive, the cuts have become increasingly targeted to increase the burden on the middleclass brackets to the benefit of the highest brackets resulting in low growth and poor economic stability.
Here is the deal, the top 10% own 85% of all the wealth in the country leaving only 15% for the other 90% of the peasants.
It takes the top 25% though to account for 75% of all taxes.
So in reality the top 10% should pay 85% of all taxes and the bottom 90% should pay 15%. That is not happening. So maybe you should re-think who pays their fair share and who doesn't.
for a reference point if you make 80K you are considered in the top 25% of earners.
not sure how you got that from what i posted, maybe your purposely being did ingenuous or just not comprehending the severity of the gap.
You just described a "Flat tax" system or that's about as close as you can get to what you said above.
I'm all for that but watch the left scream how that is unfair to the lower income people. The main reason for that is nearly 50% in this country current pays no net Federal Income tax. They pay net zero or actually get more back than paid in. With a flat tax they would start paying a more fair share and they WILL scream bloody murder when that happens.
Can't have that now can we? Need to let those folks keep sucking off the Federal teet and pay nothing for it right?
Yeah i'm all for a Flat tax. Problem is the left is not. It would mean they actually start paying federal income tax.
"The horror ..... the horror"
- Col. Kurtz, Apocalypse now.
Lol sure you are. As long as it's someone else who gets taxed.
Thus defines the left's "fair" tax plan. They are all for taxing someone else.
Lol dude, why do you even try asking?
Do you realize that Heritage and Heartland are the same folk? Lies on top of lies is their MO.
Blah. blah, blah ..... prove the Heritage data wrong with solid information or STFU.
That data is a heavily inconvenient fact for the left but by all means, keep telling your lie that it is false and i'll keep calling BS on you.
I'll be waiting for your factual data proving the Heritage data wrong. I've been waiting years for some left wing wizard to prove it wrong. Still not holding my breath for that though because the truth is the truth and the left ain't got it in this case. it rarely does.
"A true flat rate tax is a system of taxation where one tax rate is applied to all personal income with no deductions."
Remember we are only taking about people that actually earned an income.
If you start with the numbers i found for 2006 $2.655 Trillion Gov Spending with $7.723 Trillion income earned. 34.3% of all income must be taxed to cover spending (my fantasy). $2.256 Trillion would be paid for by the top 10% earners (assuming they earned 85% of income) leaving $399 Billion to be paid by the other 90%.
106,650,774 filers in 2006 top 10% 10,665,077.4 people would pay $211,532 each if it was a flat tax, but each section of the top 10% could be broken into at least 3 other sections, raising some taxes decreasing others. The bottom 90% 95,985,697 would pay $4,156,87 each. Now once again though the 90% can be broken into 4-5 sub groups that would then share a different burden.
Gets way more complicated the more i look into it, making my head hurt.
Perhaps that makes a national sales tax more attractive especially where so many function in a world of unreported income, I know many. The sales tax gets muted some by the barter system but you need to be somewhat creative to gain a lot there.
Can you show me evidence that the Top earners actually pay more than their "fair" share. I would like to see how much income the top 10% earn as a collective to the rest of the US and how much by % of the total tax bill they actually paid. Lets see if it is a true representation of earnings vs payment.
I think you will be surprised to find out that in fact they do not pay a proportionate % of taxes in regards to % of income earned, the gap widens once you start comparing Net vs Gross i am guessing also.
Also that is your definition of "Fair" share they are supposed to pay?
National sales tax wont work because the wealthy do not spend a proportionate amount of the dollars they earn. Those below the 20% earners category proportionally spend 100% of their income and save $0. So they are now taxed on all of their earnings. The next section 15%-20% spend about 80%-85% of their income so would not be taxed on 15% of it. The higher you go the less and less of the total dollars are actually spent so money starts to become invisible (for lack of a better term). Once its invested or saved it does not get taxed because it was not spent on goods or services.
all numbers above are notional.
Well, the tax cut will reduce the deficit.
And help the Middle Class.
(Would Trump actually lie-- of course not!)
Only in yours and Trumps dreams. The President and people of Mexico have already stated "We will not pay for the wall".
Anything about that statement you don't understand?
They'll pay, Raven, unless every peso of the assets of the Mexican Government or any Mexican citizens are out of the reach of the IRS and cannot be confiscated. If the Mexican Government or any other government wants to play hardball, they'll find that the US is pretty good at that game, as long as we have leaders who are willing to use the power they've been given.
Frankly, I'm not in favor of an actual wall anyway. It's too expensive and not efficient. My choice would be two razor wire fences fifty yards apart, extending the entire length of the border. Between them plant seismic listening devices and about five million AP mines. On the US side there should be a machine gun post every 1,000 yards with orders to shoot anyone getting through the fence and mines. On the Mexican side, on posters placed every fifty feet should be a message (in both English and Spanish) saying, "If you choose to proceed beyond this fence, you will die".
I don't think so. You're the one who doesn't like the cuts, so you're the one who keeps the higher rate. Those of us who like the cuts get to keep them. That's only fair after all, we won the election, you didn't. "Elections Have Consequences"--Barack Obama -2009.
Don't worry-- Trump has unequivocably said the Mexicans would pay, not us!
I wouldn't mind paying more on my income taxes to pay for a wall-- would you? (just as I wouldn't maind paying more to pay for more tax cuts for the top 1%)
Perhaps the wall will pay for itself as we will no longer need border patrol to exist beyond legal entry points, an impenetrable wall needs no enforcement.
Last I heard, there was no such thing as an impenetrable wall.
It won't be "impenetrable" as it will only be built along several parts of the border...
What makes you think it will be "impenetrable", and stop Mexicans from entering the U.S.?
Texas smugglers say Trump's border wall wouldn't stop immigrants, drugs from pouring across the border
If the Trump administration follows through on the president's promises to build a border wall, would it actually stop undocumented immigrants and illegal drugs? Two former smugglers explain how they'd work around it.
It is in the trump wall corporation advertising brochure back flap, it says I am penetrable and shows a really buxom lass with trump beside her in front of a fountain and a see through wall behind. Mexican zombie hordes are unable to get to them
If you're set on using eminent domain to steal Americans lands to build the wall, why not go all the way and build a high speed rail on top of it. Brownsville, Texas to San Diego in under half an hour. Then maybe the wall would pay for itself, plus few would try and cross the tracks of a 400+ mph bullet train. Sure, it's not very sensible, but it's more reasonable than just taking peoples land to build an ineffectual wall.
I think laying a mine field would be more cost effective than a wall because mines are cheap and the blast will eliminate repeat offenders. /s But seriously, a wall seems like an inordinately expensive and low tech solution. The government is already experimenting with using drones in combination with existing fences and underground sensors. This isn’t tiny Israel. Our borders are too long and our agents too few to investigate border crossings before the illegal escapes. Drones would cut hours down to minutes and be a fun toy for agents.
Whoa-- wait a second! I thought Israel's vast conquests of Palestinian lands made them such a huge country! It not tiny-- its a vast Empire!
The CBP guy that made the presentation the other day to Trump refutes those numbers. He said that the "crappy", scrap metal wall that was done on the cheap stops 95%. So the cheap wall only leaves 5% to stop.
The CIS analysis is bias and fudges the data.
Oh and BTFW, there shouldn't be a need for a 'cost/benefit' analysis for a wall that Trump PROMISED would be paid for by Mexico, should there?
"The Wall" would be a wonderful notion, if not for the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, the sky over it, the earth underneath it or going a bit further North pick an entry point.
Here is what I do not understand in regards to our border security: If we are so concerned in regards to our borders, why are we only proposing a wall (stupid idea) to our Southern border with Mexico? Just asking.