Migrants easily cut through Trump's wall with a $100 saw

[alturic]

It's fucking mind-boggling that people are still clamoring for letting people just come in without any sort of process or anything.

Granted a wall is a pretty dumb idea, but there's only 2 things people vehemently oppose "the wall" would oppose it for. A.) They despise Trump, or B.) They think people should just be able to walk in.

Otherwise you would be for a barrier of entry.

[Kellhound]

I would posit that those two facts are the most important things. The idea that "The United States is just a placeholder for eternal values" is nonsense. Both because people are born here who cannot be made to agree with those values and neither can you expel them to other places because they were physically born in the bounded geography of the country, and Immigrants in theory could resolve this, but why do Immigrants come to the United States? It surely isn't for abstract notions of Freedom, often they have freedom elsewhere and better social services and schools in some cases. The only reason is because the land is flowing with money.

I don't see a countries role as being a job fair and strip mall for the world, nor is a country a set of political nostrums and nothing else.

One of the key values of the US is the ability to disagree with each other.

A country is a human construct that defines a distinct geopolitical entity.

[Kaleredar]

Well, in the history of mid 19th century immigration I don't think the United States ever had a point in which a third of all migrants came from one single country.

The fuck does that matter? If you're pretending that Mexican or Spanish immigrants haven't been part of the United States since its inception you haven't been paying attention... and I would find it very hard to believe you live in California if you believe that "latino influences are foreign to the United States."

You know, the former Mexican territory of California?

You think California has cities named Los Angeles (Full name El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles,) Sacramento, Santa Barbara, and San Francisco because they thought they were pretty, "exotic sounding" names?

Nor was it ever seriously argued that the United States must resettle anyone and everyone who came.

But my actual point is the the United States, like any country, isn't a job fair or strip mall. Nor is it "Timeless values", but a physical place with an inter-generational community of people. The thing that is antithetical to any country is the idea that you can simply replace a people or that all are just cogs to be managed and replaced in the name of an abstraction like the GDP.

And now we get to even greater depths of delusions; that "the immigrants are coming to replace us!"

Get off it.

[Theodarzna]

The fuck does that matter? If you're pretending that Mexican immigrants haven't been part of the United States since its inception you haven't been paying attention... and I would find it very hard to believe you live in California if you believe that "latino influences are foreign to the United States."

You know, the former Mexican territory of California?

You think California has cities named Los Angeles (Full name El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles,) Sacramento, Santa Barbara, and San Francisco because they thought they were pretty, "exotic sounding" names?

And now we get to even greater depths of delusions; that "the immigrants are coming to replace us!"

Get off it.

Well I mean, that literally serves the purpose of wanting them. Cheaper labor and more expensive rents, and saying "Well, I don't like the population as is, lets change it."

As for the history, I do agree, though let us ask how this territory came to be NOT-Mexico and tell me if you support repatriating land acquired through wars of aggression and theft back to its previous owners? I mean, I'm actually down for the US losing those states.

[Kaleredar]

Well I mean, that literally serves the purpose of wanting them. Cheaper labor and more expensive rents, and saying "Well, I don't like the population as is, lets change it."

I don't actually know how this is a response to a single word I posted.

As for the history, I do agree, though let us ask how this territory came to be NOT-Mexico and tell me if you support repatriating land acquired through wars of aggression and theft back to its previous owners? I mean, I'm actually down for the US losing those states.

...So the US is going to literally give up all of its land, then?

Once again, a notion that's neither here nor there.

[Kellhound]

And they gunned down an estimated 75,000 people in the process. People's whose deaths are mourned by monuments at the former site of the wall. That should tell you how well Trump's wall, and your advocacy of a similar position to that of the hated USSR's wall, would result.

Also, I can't actually find any verification of your "350 annual" figure anywhere online. Most sources I could find state that there were "thousands" that successfully crossed, which is still keeping in the estimations of the numbers you purport to show that the wall was effective, despite... you know, it not doing what it was supposed to do, despite being far, far shorter than the "great wall of Mexico" would have to be.

In essence, they had more control, less land to survey, and were capable of far harsher measures than the theoretical mexican border fence or wall or whatever it's going by currently. And they still failed.

"Let's spend more billions of taxpayer money to pursue a failure!" is what you're touting.



"The USSR thought it was a good approach to foreign relations!" is not policy you should be wanting to adopt.

I am beginning to think you are denser than depleted uranium..... At no point have I advocated for anything, I have just pointed out what level of defensive structure would be required. However, if you would like a more modern example, the DMZ would also work.

Yes, thousands crossed, about 2700 TOTAL between 1980 and 1988, or about 10% of those that crossed from 1962-1970. Had successful crossings fallen at the same rate it did between 1962-1970, 1971-1979 and 1980-1988 in the next 8 years, only about 1000 people would have made it. Overall, it performed it purpose quite well.

[Whiskyjack]

Ok, and we're supposed to blame immigrants for intentional moves on behalf of a company?

A company circumventing the law and keeping costs down by knowingly hiring illegal immigrants and paying them below-legal wages isn't more serious than the existence of immigrant labor to begin with?

Functionally what you have is situation not created by the existence of immigrant labor, but by the meat processing plants themselves. And, rather than blame the meat processing plants for creating this problem, you're blaming the workers.

People wanting cheap meat shouldn't be a shield for an industry making it a business plan to hire legal/illegal immigrants to keep costs down rather than hire US workers and have safe work places.



Sanctuary cities have literally nothing to do with the government going after employers rather than workers. I don't even know why you brought it up other than to throw a few cheap shots at an unrelated subject.

Because it's all tied together... you can't see the whole picture without it. There is a lack of political will to do any thing at all about the problem it's why I'm extremely skeptical of any solution though regulation. People flaunt breaking the law as is never mind expanding it.

[Katchii]

Hence why I said a Berlin style wall would be required.......

That wall didn’t keep those things out either....?

[Malaky]

Again, farcical. You're basically saying there'll be a shortage of production jobs (no such shortage currently exists) and also a shortage of production, despite the fact that... you know, an increase demand for goods drives an increase of demand for jobs to produce those goods.

You're confused. What you're proposing here is an increase in offer, not demand.

Seems like the solution here is to make it easier for people to become doctors.

So we get less qualified doctors? No thanks.

[Bodakane]

- It would be cheaper, quicker and more effective to go after the businesses that hire illegals than the stupid expensive and ineffective wall. If there's no jobs, they won't be coming over in droves.
That won't happen, because the businesses are the ones that are driving the political lynching of illegal immigration. They want there to be illegals because it gives them a cheap and disposable workforce. So these businesses, form PACs and pay Repubs to push the notion of the evil immigrant, all while they continue to smuggle people over and turn them into indentured servants.

- It would be cheaper, quicker and more effective to make it easier to become a citizen than the stupid expensive and ineffective wall. In fact, it would create funds because it would be an influx of tax paying citizens.
That won't happen because again, the business funded PACs want their to be illegals and the Trump era Repub base is inherently racist and xenophobic.

[Cthulhu 2020]

- It would be cheaper, quicker and more effective to go after the businesses that hire illegals than the stupid expensive and ineffective wall. If there's no jobs, they won't be coming over in droves.
That won't happen, because the businesses are the ones that are driving the political lynching of illegal immigration. They want there to be illegals because it gives them a cheap and disposable workforce. So these businesses, form PACs and pay Repubs to push the notion of the evil immigrant, all while they continue to smuggle people over and turn them into indentured servants.

- It would be cheaper, quicker and more effective to make it easier to become a citizen than the stupid expensive and ineffective wall. In fact, it would create funds because it would be an influx of tax paying citizens.
That won't happen because again, the business funded PACs want their to be illegals and the Trump era Repub base is inherently racist and xenophobic.

This is basically a double-sided coin, two sides of the same issue, or rather values shared by a certain set of people. They want illegals to remain illegal because yes, it means cheap labor that they can pay under the table. They also foster racism because that same racism is what makes people go after the migrants, rather than the businesses themselves. Business = good. Brown people = bad. Then, whenever immigration reform is brought up, an issue that would stream line our system, create proper vetting, etc. is brought up, they just scream "YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS FOR THEM BROWN PEOPLE" to shut down the debate.

It's also incredibly telling that people only care about our southern border, when half of illegal migrants aren't even from central or south America. We get a lot of people from European and Asian countries who come here on temporary short or long term visas that overstay and continue to work here. That the right never proposes measures that would go after illegals as a whole (Because let's face it, ICE and other immigration officials only target latin americans) because euros and asians to them are the correct color skin tone, and haven't been the subject of decades of racist propaganda. At least not in recent times anyway.

[Spectral]

- It would be cheaper, quicker and more effective to make it easier to become a citizen than the stupid expensive and ineffective wall. In fact, it would create funds because it would be an influx of tax paying citizens

This is only true for educated migrants. As covered at more length here, each migrant with lower than a high school education comes with an average cost to the United States of about $250K. Skilled migrants are a fiscal positive, unskilled migrants are a drag that productive Americans have to pay for.

[Breccia]

each migrant with lower than a high school education comes with an average cost to the United States of about $250K.

Okay, cool, cool. How much does a natural-born American without a high school education cost? Asking for dozens of millions of Trump voters.

[Spectral]

Okay, cool, cool. How much does a natural-born American without a high school education cost? Asking for dozens of millions of Trump voters.

I believe this is called "whataboutism". Of note though, it's actually perfectly legal to tell newcomers who will cost a quarter million a piece that they can't join while it's not at all legal to render Americans stateless on the basis of their education level.

[Endus]

I believe this is called "whataboutism".

Not really.

If you're going to make the case about some supposed "cost" of immigrants, you need a baseline "cost" of Americans to compare it against.

Same way people try and raise issues with illegal immigrants committing crimes, when the reality is that illegal immigrants commit less crime per capita than Americans do; illegal immigration technically reduces crime per capita.

[Spectral]

Not really.

If you're going to make the case about some supposed "cost" of immigrants, you need a baseline "cost" of Americans to compare it against.

This is not the relevant baseline unless you're promoting literal replacement. The relevant baseline for the marginal effect of an additional individual is zero net fiscal position. Not adding a new immigrant has zero net effect on the American fiscal position. Adding an educated immigrant has a net positive position, adding an uneducated immigrant has a net negative position. You can argue that the net negative is worth it, but what you can't do is this from above:

In fact, it would create funds because it would be an influx of tax paying citizens

Adding uneducated immigrants doesn't "create" funds, it commits more federal spending on the margin than these individuals will pay in taxes.

Same way people try and raise issues with illegal immigrants committing crimes, when the reality is that illegal immigrants commit less crime per capita than Americans do; illegal immigration technically reduces crime per capita.

This is a similar, but related mistake to fiscal projections - "immigrant" is too big of a category. It's feasible to make predictions about individuals based on characteristics like prior education rather than just lumping physicians and farmers together as though they're basically the same for fiscal and criminal purposes.

[Theodarzna]

Here is the thing... people don't like paying for things.... a company will always go for the cheapest option. While I would love to see oversight and crippling fines be the solution to this problem with things like sanctuary cities existing I don't believe there is the political will to follow the sensible options.

Not just cheap, but that which grants a greater amount of power.

Not only is labor cheaper, but more desperate and compliant, more likely to obey and suffer petty abuses because the job market remains tight.

Going after the companies has, if anything, been shown to be completely impossible. What would going after the companies even mean? So basically we are to have Open Borders, a literal endless stream of labor competition but somehow ensure endless welfare goodies for all AND decent working conditions and high earnings to workers despite the very contradiction of wanting to include everyone on the planet in that labor market.

The migrants serve a purpose, cheaper labor and expensive rents. And there is no amount of legal options, or technocratic fiddling at the edges that will work to subdue that given the class that benefits from Open Borders also has immense powers and connections within the State.

The easiest and popular thing is simply to restrict immigration and work with what we've already got than continue mass importing people and demanding the locals to accommodate them.

[Endus]

This is not the relevant baseline unless you're promoting literal replacement. The relevant baseline for the marginal effect of an additional individual is zero net fiscal position. Not adding a new immigrant has zero net effect on the American fiscal position. Adding an educated immigrant has a net positive position, adding an uneducated immigrant has a net negative position. You can argue that the net negative is worth it, but what you can't do is this from above:

Adding uneducated immigrants doesn't "create" funds, it commits more federal spending on the margin than these individuals will pay in taxes.

Focusing exclusively on public spending is, IMO, a mistake to begin with. I didn't want to muddy my prior post by adding a second argument, but I'll add it here; a better comparison has to include impacts on the economy as a whole; https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/...igh-costs.html

Most assessments I've seen evaluate that out as a net positive gain for the USA overall, even accounting for federal spending.

Hopefully the fact that my source is from the George W. Bush Institute of all places might forestall some complaints about source bias (from others, not you, Spectral; I disagree with you on a lot of shit but you've never done that shit, not that I recall at least).

[Spectral]

Focusing exclusively on public spending is, IMO, a mistake to begin with. I didn't want to muddy my prior post by adding a second argument, but I'll add it here; a better comparison has to include impacts on the economy as a whole; https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/...igh-costs.html

Most assessments I've seen evaluate that out as a net positive gain for the USA overall, even accounting for federal spending.

Hopefully the fact that my source is from the George W. Bush Institute of all places might forestall some complaints about source bias (from others, not you, Spectral; I disagree with you on a lot of shit but you've never done that shit, not that I recall at least).

I think we're going to bump into the same problem - there's too much aggregation there to tease apart who is adding to the economy. I have no doubt that immigrants are a massive net plus economically. I'm very skeptical of the marginal economic value of people who are in the category being addressed (or failing to be addressed) by a putative southern wall. Aggregating Chinese physicians and Indian engineers into that obfuscates rather than clarifies.

I generally don't want to wring my hands too much about budgets, but I strenuously object to the idea above that just legalizing anyone that feels like coming over would basically just be free money for Americans.

[Endus]

I think we're going to bump into the same problem - there's too much aggregation there to tease apart who is adding to the economy. I have no doubt that immigrants are a massive net plus economically. I'm very skeptical of the marginal economic value of people who are in the category being addressed (or failing to be addressed) by a putative southern wall. Aggregating Chinese physicians and Indian engineers into that obfuscates rather than clarifies.

I generally don't want to wring my hands too much about budgets, but I strenuously object to the idea above that just legalizing anyone that feels like coming over would basically just be free money for Americans.

If you de-aggregate the issue sufficiently, you end up at individual assessments and you don't really have any grounds to be talking about "immigrants", as a group, to begin with; you're talking about this one person.

I also don't think anyone is arguing that immigrants are "free money for Americans". Just that they're a long-term gain, help to address declining population growth, and fulfill short-term labor market needs. And for all the "they tend to have a small depressive effect on wages for jobs held by high school dropouts" that gets posted, that considers the issue in a vacuum, since people like myself are generally also advocating for things like basic income programs, which would address the issue there (and, for the sake of making a point here, not apply to non-citizens; I generally support a relatively fast path to citizenship for the gainfully employed, but BI programs wouldn't provide assistance until that's achieved). Taking our positions on immigration as if they are separate and distinct from our other policy views is a mistake; what might seem to be a weak point in one position is often directly shored up by another.