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
Tags
Who is online
75 visitors
“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.”
Especially since the Mexicans are paying for it right?
The border wall will be a great benefit to America. The union man is right on.
You want the wall, you pay for it.....stupid idea that would cost billions and won't deter people from coming here. Where there's a will there's a way.
The wall will pay for itself. The article makes that clear. The new prototypes are virtually unclimbable and impenetrable short of heavy weapons of war.
Not true.....According to Trump, Mexico will happily pay for his wall. /s
Oh really? A super expensive and invulnerable wall? Ask China how that worked out.
No, ask Israel how that worked out.
No it won't.
It works in Israel 🇮🇱 and would be effective here as well. If you democrats really believed it wouldn’t work and would be ineffective you wouldn’t so strongly oppose it. You all oppose it because you know it will work to keep many of your future voters out of this country.
The above article is how they will pay 💰 for it.
Actually the Great Wall worked out pretty well for China, it never was breached by foreign amries and was penatrated just 5 times when gatekeepers accepted bribes to open the gates.
You realize that the Great Wall wasn't trying to stop undocumented immigrants, right? If we had Mongol hoards coming in and pillaging our border cities a wall might make sense. That isn't the case here. 70% of the undocumented immigrants arrived legally but overstayed their Visas. A wall isn't going to do squat about that reality.
Every "wall" I've seen, I've devised a way to penetrate.
How about it deters some folks?
Should we abandon border security all together because we can't stop them all from coming here illegally?
How many is 'some'?
Should we abandon all gun laws because we can't stop criminals and the mentally unstable from getting guns?
Of course not, we need effective border security just like we need effective gun laws. But the reality is the wall is a huge cost for very little benefit when 70% of all undocumented immigrants are here because they overstayed their Visas. No border wall is going to help with that. At least universal background checks have a chance of limiting sales to criminals and the mentally unstable, a wall has no chance of blocking an immigrant who flies in legally.
Some is more than 3
We have background checks for gun purchases. Do you think we don't?
I do agree that so many overstay their visas. We need to deal harshly with those people. They shouldn't be allowed to flaunt our laws.
And how are they deterred again? Do you have documentation of how many folks have been deterred by this wall?
Are we talking Jericho or Jerusalem?
Why worry-- Mexicans are going to pay for the wall, not American taxpayers.
In fact, Trump himself said that the Mexicans are going to pay for it-- and would Trump actually lie?
Oh course not!
Hm, you don't like that argument when it comes to regulating rapid fire weapons, why is this different? All we hear from the NRA is that it won't solve the problem so do nothing. What's up with that?
That's not what you hear. What you hear and very carefully ignore, because it doesn't fit the agenda, is, "it won't solve the problem so do something else that will solve the problem.
A border wall is the type of solution that a 10 year old would come up with. Plus, haven't you heard? Trump has changed his mind(?), he no longer wants a border wall, he now wants a border window that he can look through.
Trump offered to more than double the number of DACA people allowed to stay and offered them citizenship. That won’t happen though unless the wall is built too.
Ahhh, extortion to get his stupid ass, juvenile idea financed. Just goes to show you how unpopular that stupid idea is.
Does Trump realize that modern technology, after decades of research, has come up with a solution for dealing with his wall? I'll try not to be too technical, but it is a new item that scientists are calling a "ladder".
No, not extortion. Simple horse trading and compromising leading to a comprehensive solution. Note that DACA individuals are turning on democrats who want to use them and their situation as a campaign issue rather than accepting Trumps offer which gives them far more than Obama would have.
Horsetrading? No, extortion is the correct term.
See the difference?
Where did the "Lifer" Democrats go since the DACA deadline passed ?
The same way of the Gloria Allred Accusers of anything Republican ?
POOOOF ! Gone ?
Democrats wanted 800 thousand. Trump offered 1.8 million. Democrats turned it down.
Democrats are such a concerned bunch....aren't they ?
Like every other citizen they are waiting for the expedited decision, requested by the Administration, from SCOTUS.
The closed door meeting was on Friday, but no announcement was made. The earliest we will hear anything is now Tuesday.
So....someone else is doing the job Democrat politicians say they wanted done.....AGAIN ?
Progressives always rely on unelected courts to try to impose upon the American people what ever they can’t get past the legislative body. Recently they tried an end around with executive orders from a friendly executive. Now that those are being undone by an unfriendly to them executive they again turn to the courts to try to make their executives orders permanent by judicial fiat.
2.2.7 It Is ME replied to Split Personality @ 2.2.6
You do both realize that the Administration that requested this is Republican right?
Yes, I know Trump wants to expidite the process do we can end DACA as an executive act and have congress pass a law.
DACA was an unconstitutional overreach of executive branch political by the old reginem
True-- he's no longer going to pay Stormy Daniels for sex-- he's found a new whore. (repeatedly Melania has approved of the new women).
And a cure for cancer would be a huge boon to America.
Of course it would be.
And a HUUUUUUGE job loser.
just sayin.
makes you wonder huh.
Nice headline, except the are no facts to back it up. It is just a slogan. Not to mention the wall will never happen.
Check out the last two paragraphs of the seeded article. DACA recipients want the Trump deal.
So what? Most of them are going to be deported soon-- their opinion doesn't matter.
And if any of them manage to stay in the U.S.-- Trump has made sure they can't vote anyway!
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!
“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.”
HE LIED. PAY FOR YOUR OWN DAMN WALL.
I agree. The money we give Mexico should be used for the wall!
No the union leader didn’t lie. You are just upset that it will prevent some of your future voters from getting here and having that welfare state extended to them.
It will be. A lot of illegals send money they earn back home to family down there still. If they never come here and don’t get those benefits, that money won’t be going down there. So we use some of that saved money that never makes its way down to Mexico to build the wall. We should charge a transaction tax on all $ sent from non American citizens from here to Mexico.
The mental gymnastics you people go through just so you don't have to admit you were LIED to. Anyone with any sense knew Mexico was NEVER going to pay for that damn wall....SHEEP. If you want a wall so bad take up a donation and pay with it from your wallet, stop trying to re-distribute my money to pay for a Wall That Stops No One. (Bridge to Know Where reference)
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.
Most Americans want the wall built. That’s the bottom line. Once it’s up the savings can be achieved.
Facts, republicans don't need no stinkin facts, they are "fake news" when they don't agree with them
Game. Game, set, match. You're welcome!
Republicans and conservatives have an endless supply of "alternative facts". Aside from a bizarre and pointless hatred of Hillary Clinton, that is all they need.
That's kind of funny, considering what you have posted almost daily since the election of 2016.
Trump is the president of the United States. You obsess about someone who hasn't been in public office for 6 years and lost her last election almost 18 months ago.
And yet you have complained every day about Trump. You seem obsessed with him.
Is Trump living rent-free in your head?
Yet not a day has gone by since that election that you have not complained about the results of it.
Did you really think that a demented tv game show host/unethical businessman/unhinged narcissist was going to grab control of the US government and no one was going to give him hell?
rofl. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you are naive.
And yet the people looked at him for a year and a half and decided that for all his faults it was preferable for him and not Hillary to be our President. I do understand your preference to lash out in blind rage to a serious introspection as to why she and you lost.
So true. If you actually read the study linked in the article you'll notice some glaring errors.
"If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall"
So over 10 years it could supposedly save $12 to $15 billion which is the low estimate for the border wall, but doesn't take into consideration the loss in taxes (most undocumented immigrants pay taxes, both income taxes and sales taxes).
"Undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion of taxes every single year."
Also, over 70% of the undocumented immigrants come by overstaying Visas, not border crossings. So the wall will do nothing for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants coming to our country.
"The nexus of illegal immigration into the U.S. has shifted away from the southwest border and into the country’s air and sea ports, where more than 54 million visitors checked in last year — and nearly 630,000 of them didn’t go home, according to new numbers released Monday."
I am all for effective immigration policy that stops the influx of undocumented immigrants, but a boondoggle wall across a 2,000 mile border is just ridiculous. It would be better to just hand the tens of billions of dollars a wall would cost to Mexico so it can improve it's own police and military to protect the people from the cartels so there would be less of a desire to come here in the first place. Building an ineffectual wall that won't stop illegal immigration is just plain stupid.
Deleted CoC {SP}
No Personal Attacks: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Address issues and arguments, not individual members.
Just like Hitler. Seems Trump could be even more dangerous to democracy.
You realize that when you mention Hitler and compare Trump to him, you lose all credibility with thinking adults?
His audience isn't thinking adults, it is liberals.
Most Americans Continue To Oppose U.S. Border Wall, Doubt Mexico Would Pay For It
C'mon, let's be reasonable. The Mexicans will pay for it. Mexican taxpayers-- unlike American taxpayers-- are quite willing to pay for it. And they will do so glady!
How do I know that Mexico will pay and not Americans?
Because trump said so.
(And would Trump lie-- of course not!)
But....eh......psst......lib....(whispers.....Mexico will be paying for the wall. Remember?)
Ultimately they will be.
And the tax cut will pay for itself too, right HA?
So we can safely assume that since you are dead set against the tax cuts, you will be paying the old rate next year when you file. right?
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!
Read something and learn.
The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates | The Heritage ...
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-historical-lessons-lower...
Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation). According to President John F. Kennedy: Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other.
Kennedy was right.
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.
Despite the cuts in rates, the wealthy now pay a larger share of taxes collected than ever before.
If the middle class is paying more of the burden now, can you provide any numbers to back that up?
No, they do not.
Yelling "NO" isn't debate.
back your claims up with some proof.
How Much Do the Top 1 Percent Pay of All Taxes?
dailysignal.com/.../15/how-much-do-the-top-1-percent-pay-of-all-taxes
The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. When looking at just federal income taxes, they pay 68 percent of the burden. The top 1 percent pays 24 percent of all federal taxes compared to 35 percent of all federal income taxes. The data for total federal …
What percentage of federal income tax is paid by the wealthy
www.answers.com › … › Personal Finance › Taxes and Tax Preparation
What percentage of federal income tax is ... What percentage of federal income taxes was paid by ... The top 50% paid 97.3% of all Federal Income taxes collected.
High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to ...
www.pewresearch.org/.../high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes...
By design, wealthier Americans pay most of the nation’s total individual income taxes.
The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes - Mar. 12, 2013
money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html
Mar 12, 2013 · The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxes. That's up from 55% in 1986.
Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes - CNBC
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal...
Watch video · The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of federal income taxes ... 2 percent of federal income taxes. Read More Where the rich make their income.
What percent of income taxes are paid by the rich?
www.thesoapboxers.com/taxes-paid-rich
What percent of federal income taxes are paid by the rich? ... What percentage of taxes do the rich pay? ... The data used in this article comes straight from the ...
1 Percenters Pay 24 Percent and Top 10 Percent Pay 53.3 ...
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/curtis-dubay/1-percenters-pay...
1 Percenters Pay 24 Percent and Top 10 Percent Pay 53.3 ... The top 10 percent pays 53.3 percent of all federal taxes. ... The data for federal income taxes come ...
"The top 10 percent of [federal income] taxpayers paid ...
https://www.quora.com/The-top-10-percent-of-federal-income...
"The top 10 percent of [federal income] ... special” tax for rich people - it’s all the same income tax. ... tax revenue is collected thru personal income tax.
The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes
https://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/11/the-rich-do-not-pay-the-most-taxes...
Watch video · The rich pay all the taxes ... when it comes to individual income taxes, ... the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans saw before-tax income grow more than 16 percent ...
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.
So the middle class hasn't seen taxes increase as a share of taxes collected--as I stated.
The wealthy now pay more than their "fair" share. Many in America pay no federal income taxes.
Ah, I see the problem now.
We don't tax wealth in this country, we tax income.
And the wealthy pay far more in tax dollars than all other groups combined.
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.
gee, where would I get it from?
ts 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 sta
Your words, not mine.
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?
They want the wealthy to pay higher taxes so that the nonpayers can use more government services.
That is all you can post.'
You never seem able to back your points up with any sources other than your mouth running on and yelling No it isn't every chance you get.
Still waiting for you to PROVE me wrong.
Typing no doesn't cut it here.
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.
If a flat tax was initiated - the poor and middle class would get screwed, as usual.
A flat tax only helps the wealthy.
The left isn't for flat taxes, or even fair taxes.
But it HAS been a hoot watching them try to devise schemes to keep the wealthy in THEIR states from "paying their fair share"!!
Of course we are for fair taxes.
heck, you still think the middle class and poor are paying more now than they used to.
LMFAO and SMDH
You have no idea what I think. If you knew - It would be a COC violation.
Just going by YOUR posts.
If that isn't what you think, you might as well stop posting nonsense.
You claimed the rich don't pay a larger share now of income taxes collected, and I proved you wrong.
Despite your childish "No, they don't"!
Ok, humor me.
What is everyone's fair share?
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?
I like stumping her. Granted, it IS child's play, maybe I should be kinder to folks less fortunate.
You have yet to prove me wrong on anything.
I said no such thing
I never said that either.
Okay, I proved to anyone and everyone willing and smart enough to read the link I provided OR those capable of doing their own research that you are wrong.'
Feel better now, punkin?
What is my fair share?
Do you realize that Heritage and Heartland are the same folk? Lies on top of lies is their MO.
Didn't have to. Your post that the wealthy do not pay a larger share means that since we now collect more revenue than ever, it must come from the middle and lower class IF what you claim about the rich is true. Which, of course, everyone knows isn't true.
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.
I realize that some like to attack the source when they can't rebut the actual facts.
How about all the sources listed in 5.2.11?
Too left-leaning for ya?
"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!)
Actually, they do. The top 10% pays 71% of all federal income taxes.
You are conflating held wealth with current income. We don’t charge a wealth tax here. It’s an income tax. A billionaire by assets held with 0 current income would pay 0 federal income tax having no current income.
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.
Gee, most Americans didn't want the PPACA but, guess what, Democrats passed it anyways.
Why do you not want secure borders?
Back atcha: why do you think building a wall (along only some portions of the border) would "secure the border"?
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%)
Anyone wonder why some Americans are willing to let anyone in the country for any reason at all?
Or why they are so willing to sell out America?
Sad state of affairs.
Well, the most common reason for this was the Republicans wanting illegals here to supply cheap labor for their wealthy donors.
Right. The GOP has always been for enforcing immigration laws while Democrats largely try to hinder enforcement of immigration laws.
Are you trying to claim that the GOP wants the wall to enable illegal aliens to enter easily just for cheap labor?
And THAT makes sense in Liberal La-La Land?
LMFAO
Californication relishes in its selling out of America.
One good thing--last year more people moved out of California than moved there. Let that trend continue and California will have less and less influence. They are taxing their citizens so much they are starting to move away. Plus, high housing costs are killing them.
That trend has been going on for the better part of a decade. They don’t care that they are losing more domestic migration traffic than they are gaining. They make up the difference with immigrants and are not shy about allowing the illegal ones to vote too. This is why we are trying to break free of that stupid state. We are culturally much more like the people in the State you are named for here, and very different from big city coastal Californication.
More illegal drugs are brought here via water and air routes. A wall would be an expensive white elephant. Desperate people will find a way to go under it or over it and we the taxpayers will have spent an astronomically amount of money for nothing.
So what if the "majority of Americans don't want it".
The "majority of Americans" didn't want Democrats to pass the PPACA, either, but we got it anyways, right?
And here I thought it was the Kochs, republicans and capitalists in general that are selling out America.
That's what Donald Rump is doing - lock, stock, and barrel.
There should be a For Sale sign on the now White Trash House lawn.
Psst......wake up--you're still dreaming.
Trump has stopped the sale of America to foreigners that was going on before. He’s putting America and Americans first.
Seriously-- do you actually believe that building a wall (along a few parts of the border will stop that? (For starters-- jhey won't build it along the entire Mexican -- only some parts!) There are a lot of illegal Haitians and Cubans living in Florida-- a wall didn't stop them (because-- there is none-- they easily came in by boat-- and that another way Mexicans can enter the U.S.-- look at the map!)
It will definitely help. It isn't meant to be a cure-all.
We also need to tighten up on those people overstaying their visas. Perhaps stiff fines and no re-entry for at least 10 years?
isn't that the same argument for proposed gun laws - like raising the age limit to buy them etc ?
i can agree with tightening up on those people who overstay their visas, since that's where most of our illegal immigration comes from - but how would a wall help with that ?
No Cuban is here illegally.
A wall will help deter illegal aliens. We still have quite a number of them that come across illegally.
True. The whole point of a wall is deterrence . Of drugs, terrorists, illegal aliens crossing the border.
a wall will help deter illegals who overstay their legal visas ? how does a wall accomplish that ? how do we acquire the majority of our illegal immigrants ?
There’s no such thing as a 100% solution. We can’t in this case let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
i understand that and agree - there is no such thing as a 100% solution. but that didn't answer my question - if the majority of our illegal immigration comes from people overstaying their legal visas, then how will a wall reduce that ? shouldn't we concentrate on that first since that's where the majority of the illegal immigration comes from ?
it's almost like saying - there's a large leak in the local dam, so let's get 5 buckets and scoop out the water instead of actually fixing the dam.
No one is claiming a wall will help deter people who overstay visas.
Don't be so damn ridiculous.
now wait... this wall is supposed to help with reduction of illegal immigration and the biggest source of that is overstaying legal visas, correct ?
Surely you know the difference between illegal aliens sneaking across borders and people overstaying visas.
Don't you?
OBVIOUSLY (to MOST folks!) a wall doesn't prevent people from overstaying visas.
But it would help to deter people from crossing the border illegally.
Just curious as to why you don't wish to stop illegal aliens?
absolutely but the final outcome remains - both categories end up classified as illegal immigrants, correct ?
so why aren't we first trying to solve the issue of the cause of most of our illegal immigration ? i'm not denying that people sneaking across the border doesn't exist - but if you have a dam that has a leak then why are you grabbing a bucket to scoop water out instead of just fixing the dam first ?
i've never stated such - unless you can point quote my words stating as such - go ahead, i'll wait.
If you were for stricter enforcement of immigration laws, and wish to see more illegal aliens apprehended, I don't believe you would be so dead-set against a wall. The wall certainly won't ALLOW more illegal aliens to come here.
You must realize that the wall is but one piece of a puzzle that must be formed for effective immigration control.
you believe incorrectly - i'm dead-set against wasting a large amount of money that won't even tackle the main source of our illegal immigration. you are correct - the wall certainly won't allow more illegal aliens to come here.. from Mexico or South America, etc. Of course, if they just come here on an education visa (student visa) and overstay it (like the majority of illegal immigrants are doing - overstaying their visas) then the wall doesn't help at all, right ? so if your dishwasher leaks - do you just stop using the dishwasher (wall) or do you fix the actual leak (tackling those overstaying on visas and working to stop that issue) ?
i'm aware of that - so why are we pushing the smaller pieces of the puzzle first and not tackling the larger pieces ?
Exactly. ICE deals with those who overstay their visas to become illegal aliens.
Looks like we ARE trying.
But people like the mayor of Oakland want something different--lax enforcement, apparently, along with most of the sanctuary city or state supporters.
I think Trump does it because he is a puppet of Putin.
That's why.
That is so stupid I am at a loss for words.
Agreed. Simply ridiculous.
Wow, unless you are a Native American everyone in the U.S. is here because somewhere in their family tree someone has been "let In" at some point or another. That comment is out there for sure.
If you choose to ignore immigration laws, that's your problem.
We do have them for a reason, you know.
So if you really want to go there, technically not even Native Americans are truly "native" to this land.
They migrated here as well. That is an undeniable fact.
Even they immigrated here according to the history books.
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.
Don't believe anyone is saying the wall would be impenetrable.
But definitely would help.
Walls work equally well at keeping people in as out.
Who has said one single word about keeping Americans from leaving America?
How so?
Are you freaking serious??
SMH
Yet.
Well, you are certainly welcome to go all Chicken Little on us, but I won't participate in that crap.
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.
Yeah--we could model it after California's infamous bullet train that is sooooo under budget and coming along so smoothly.
LMFAO
If that be true-- what make you think that the Wall will be any different? (And while Trump has promised the Mexican will pay for it-- what happens when they get waaaay behind in their payments? Or-- what if their government changes and a new party coms to power in Mexico-- a new party that is enthusiastic to have Mexican taxpayers pay for it?)
IF that be true?
Do you not know that California is already way over budget and hasn't really completed anything yet?
California bullet train cost surges by $2.8 billion: 'Worst-case scenario ...
www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-overrun-20180116-story.html
Jan 16, 2018 - California bullet train cost surges by $2.8 billion: 'Worst-case scenario has happened' The estimated cost of building 119 miles of bullet train track in the Central Valley has jumped to $10.6 billion, an increase of $2.8 billion from the current budget and up from about $6 billion originally.
Cost for California bullet train system rises to $77.3 billion
www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-increase-20180309-story.html
Mar 9, 2018 - The California bullet train project took a sharp jump in price Friday when the state rail authority announced the cost of connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco ... "At first glance, the High Speed Rail project is still over budget and the funding to complete the program hasn't been identified," said Jim Frazier ...
Report: High-speed rail running way over budget - The Mercury News
https://www.mercurynews.com/.../confidential-report-california-bullet-train-could-cost...
Jan 13, 2017 - The rail authority's chief executive, Jeff Morales, insisted to the Times that the project would cost less than the feds projected. ... California voters approved the project — originally said to cost $40 billion — in 2008. The latest official estimate for the bullet train is about $64 billion.
California's bullet train (and biggest boondoggle) is over budget by ...
www.foxnews.com/.../californias-bullet-train-and-biggest-boondoggle-overbudget-by-bi...
Jan 19, 2018 - New reports reveal California's bullet train construction project is costing $2.8 billion more than anticipated. ... Just this week, the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the organization charged with overseeing construction, reported that the cost of the first segment had dramatically risen – again.
Pull the plug on California bullet train, says San Jose Mercury News ...
https://sf.curbed.com/2018/1/29/16946576/san-jose-mercury-high-speed-rail-budget
Jan 29, 2018 - In a Friday editorial, the San Jose Mercury News tried to derail the ongoing California High-Speed Rail project, complaining that, among other things, the plan to connect northern and southern California via bullet train is billions of dollars over budget. The paper isn't wrong about the numbers: At a January ...
California should hit brakes on costly bullet train plan - The San Diego ...
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/.../sd-utbg-california-bullet-train-20180202-story.ht...
Feb 2, 2018 - Officials raised the projected cost of the first phase of California's bullet train by 35 percent, to $10.6 billion. (Associated Press file ... To make matters worse, the first 119-mile phase of the project isn't even close to being complete, and it's already running $2.8 billion over budget. How much more money will ...
California bullet train: Time for truth from Democrats running for ...
www.sandiegouniontribune.com/.../sd-california-bullet-train-cost-overrun-20180117-...
California's bullet train could cost taxpayers 50% more than estimated for the first 118 miles — as much as $3.6 billion more – according to a confidential federal report obtained by the Los Angeles Times. (Jan. 13, 2017). The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board. A consultant's new estimate that the cost of building the ...
Shock Article: California Bullet Train Over Budget - RedState
https://www.redstate.com/patterico/2018/.../shock-article-california-bullet-train-budget...
Jan 17, 2018 - Let's take a break from Donald Trump's latest drama of the day and discuss a truly shocking development: the California bullet train is over budget. Hahahahaha I couldn't keep a straight face for even 10 seconds. Of course it's over budget: The estimated cost of building 119 miles of bullet train track in the ...
CA Gov. Jerry Brown backs over-budget bullet train in final address ...
https://www.constructiondive.com/news/ca-gov...over-budget-bullet-train.../515751/
Jan 29, 2018 - In his final State of the State speech, Gov. Jerry Brown continued to extol the benefits of the California High-Speed Rail Authority's now-$67 billion bullet train project, even though the cost is significantly over budget and the project is behind schedule, according to KPIX. Brown told lawmakers that cost ...
I hope the exodus from Cali continues on. Nothing like losing a House seat or two after the next census!
Cali will regret one day taxing its citizens so much that they have to move from the state.
Weather is great there, but do you really want to live outdoors year-round?
Housing is ridiculous. Gas prices are ridiculous. Income taxes are ridiculous.
Cali is willing to tax the citizens to pursue their version of liberal Utopia, and it takes LOTS of tax dollars to do that.
Let's see how much the liberal elites in Cali are willing to pony up now.
California population is still growing, it's at +0.7% annually. The average has decreased from 1% growth from a few years ago, but the population continues to grow despite the reduced number of people coming from other States.
Okay.
Can you call these sources and tell them that you are correct and they are all wrong?
Californians fed up with housing costs and taxes are fleeing state
https://www.cnbc.com/.../californians-fed-up-with-housing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing...
1 day ago - More Californians are moving from the Golden State, particularly lower-income residents, although even middle-class residents are saying goodbye. The trend is a symptom of the state's housing crunch and, for some, high taxes. Census Bureau data show California lost just over 138,000 people to ...
Packing up and moving out: People are leaving California in droves ...
www.vvdailypress.com/.../packing-up-and-moving-out-people-are-leaving-california-...
Feb 3, 2018 - And despite the state losing 3.5 million people to other states from 2010 to 2015, many demographic experts said there is no mass exodus from California. But this story is not so much about the amount of Californians leaving, but about why so many longtime High Desert residents have moved out of the ...
California is a national leader in outbound moves: Where did they go ...
www.ocregister.com/.../census-142932-more-people-left-california-than-moved-here-...
Nov 16, 2017 - California continues to see more folks moving elsewhere in the nation rather than relocating here, a sign the state looks relatively unappealing to others. Last year, California had 142,932 more residents exit to live in other states than arrive, according to an analysis of a new report from the U.S. Census ...
Conservative Californians are moving to Texas for the home prices ...
https://qz.com/.../conservative-californians-are-moving-to-texas-for-the-home-prices-a...
Feb 17, 2018 - “California is a lost cause now. I tell people 'Abandon ship. Go to Texas,'” he says. Korenthal is part of a wave of Californians fleeing the Golden State's high cost of living, and more recently, the increasingly liberal agenda of its Democratic-dominated state government. Some California residents have ...
people are leaving California than moving in — so ... - The Tribune
www.sanluisobispo.com/news/state/california/article201896909.html
Feb 23, 2018 - California's population got older and wealthier as more people moved out than moved to the state. So where is everybody going?
They're leaving California for Las Vegas to find the middle-class life ...
www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-vegas-transplants-20171203-story.html
Dec 3, 2017 - Solid recent data is hard to come by, but 2016 census figures showed an uptick in the number of people who fled Los Angeles and Orange counties for less expensive California locales, or they left the state altogether. "If housing costs continue to rise, we should expect to see more people leaving high-cost ...
its true that Ca is growing slowly in population now. Domestic migration is a big net loss for Ca. With in the USA. A pricing of one way U-Haul rentals from place to place and the reverse will show that. Californication has increased pop. entirely due to immigration from abroad, legal and illegal.
no one said people were not leaving, the previous comment suggests that a combination of people being born and those coming into California is still out pacing those leaving. People have always left Cali and people have always moved there. Supply and demand dictates that yes at some point in order for the housing costs to come down more people will have to leave but until then the housing market as crazy as it is will continue to chug along and people will continue to purchase the homes, fear not Cali will be just fine.
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!
I don’t see a need for a 100% of border wall either. There are areas near population centers and major highways where they are needed. Other places double fencing with a border patrol 4x4 path between them is adequate. Drones would be useful in helping in the apprehending of illegals in desert areas before they experience too much heat or thirst.
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?
This seed sat dormant for 2-3 days and suddenly exploded in interest. Please be civil and dialog in a way that comity is achieved.
"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.