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

[Malaky]

We expect the president of the United state's words to carry weight.
That you do not says more about you than anyone else.

Oh, they do carry weight, and in the right way too.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're saying "immigration" is harmful.
Straight up, that's what you just said.

Making up stuff again?
Interesting how you're constantly unable to tell the difference between legal and illegal.

[Skroe]

Real Americans build bridges not walls.

Not coincidentally, happy 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Facilitated by the United States.

Because walls to divide people are intrinsically evil, and so are the people who advocate for them.

[Endus]

Except it isn't.. let me make it easier for you... let's say I have 5 apples. Now let's say five people want to buy apples. I sell an apple for a dollar the current price.

Now let's say the next day 30 people want to buy an apple but I still have 5 apples to sell I can't produce anymore in a short period of time. I now sell my apples for 10 dollars a piece...

It's a extremely simple example and I know it doesn't cover all of intricacies of it but simply adding consumers to a market doesn't actually make necessities cheaper to obtain but the opposite.

It's overly simple, and thus, wrong.

You're attempting to translate "I have 5 apples" to "the national markets for all goods and services". Such that "more people" means more demand for a set amount of goods and services, causing prices to rise.

That isn't how economies work. Adding more people adds more markets. The 30 people are all selling their own types of products, in this example. They're not all going to want an apple; they may want someone else's orange. Or an avocado. Some of your old customers may start buying something else, because they never really wanted an apple, but they lacked options they now have. You'll be having to compete in that marketplace, and adding more people to that market both increases demand and productivity potential to meet that demand. In fact, the latter scales up better than the former, generally, since we don't produce goods and services at a 1:1 ratio, of one producer to one consumer. That's why economies exploded during and after the Industrial Revolution, essentially.

The root issue is you're talking about "adding consumers to a market". And that's not a reasonable principle. Adding population adds both consumers and workers contributing to production. You can't separate them out, ignore half the equation, and then claim the equation is unbalanced, and that's what you're doing, here.

- - - Updated - - -

Making up stuff again?
Interesting how you're constantly unable to tell the difference between legal and illegal.

This was in response to my earlier comments, suggesting making illegal immigration legal, wherein you stated you'd have a problem with that.

So clearly, your issue is not "the difference between legal and illegal". Even if it were all legalized, you insisted you'd still oppose immigration.

[Whiskyjack]

It's overly simple, and thus, wrong.

You're attempting to translate "I have 5 apples" to "the national markets for all goods and services". Such that "more people" means more demand for a set amount of goods and services, causing prices to rise.

That isn't how economies work. Adding more people adds more markets. The 30 people are all selling their own types of products, in this example. They're not all going to want an apple; they may want someone else's orange. Or an avocado. Some of your old customers may start buying something else, because they never really wanted an apple, but they lacked options they now have. You'll be having to compete in that marketplace, and adding more people to that market both increases demand and productivity potential to meet that demand. In fact, the latter scales up better than the former, generally, since we don't produce goods and services at a 1:1 ratio, of one producer to one consumer. That's why economies exploded during and after the Industrial Revolution, essentially.

The root issue is you're talking about "adding consumers to a market". And that's not a reasonable principle. Adding population adds both consumers and workers contributing to production. You can't separate them out, ignore half the equation, and then claim the equation is unbalanced, and that's what you're doing, here.

- - - Updated - - -



This was in response to my earlier comments, suggesting making illegal immigration legal, wherein you stated you'd have a problem with that.

So clearly, your issue is not "the difference between legal and illegal". Even if it were all legalized, you insisted you'd still oppose immigration.

The issue here is we are adding consumers... the workers in question have little value to companies that offer a legal wage. Their sole use is to undercut the wages of physically demanding labor or unpleasant work.

We are talking about illegal immigrants and those rarely if ever have the skills or education required to he a normal producer.

It isnt fair but the sole use these people have to the market is to keep buying power low among the working class and to stagnate wages.

[Elegiac]

The issue here is we are adding consumers...

And? Market economies are built on consumption - even Adam Smith, Patron Saint of the Free Market, acknowledges as such.

the workers in question have little value to companies that offer a legal wage. Their sole use is to undercut the wages of physically demanding labor or unpleasant work.

We are talking about illegal immigrants and those rarely if ever have the skills or education required to he a normal producer.

It isnt fair but the sole use these people have to the market is to keep buying power low among the working class and to stagnate wages.

Once again; production is a function of supply, consumption is a function of demand. Market economies are demand driven, not supply driven.

You're literally just trying to sell supply side economics here.

[cubby]

I think it is kinda clear we do... though I think were we differ is I accept there isn't a 100% percent effective solution to the problem. That doesn't mean I believe that we should just abandon any attempt at making it better.

But of course you do abandon any attempt at making it better. The wall is objectively not useful and won't work - everybody told Trump (including his own internal agencies until he politicalzied them). Everyone and all the data points to the visa issue being the biggest problem with immigration.

But the racist fuck doesn't care about reality.

[Endus]

The issue here is we are adding consumers... the workers in question have little value to companies that offer a legal wage. Their sole use is to undercut the wages of physically demanding labor or unpleasant work.

1> Consumers have significant value to a capitalist market, just by dint of being consumers. Consumer interests and support have been the keystone of capitalist theory dating way back to Adam Smith; focusing on producers is a mistake.

2> You aren't exclusively adding consumers. That's just factually incorrect. Many of these immigrants will work.

We are talking about illegal immigrants and those rarely if ever have the skills or education required to he a normal producer.

Picking fruit or sweeping floors is "being a normal productive worker". It doesn't take skilled labor, to begin with.

It isnt fair but the sole use these people have to the market is to keep buying power low among the working class and to stagnate wages.

Given the above, this conclusion is simply incorrect, for multiple reasons.

[Elegiac]

Picking fruit or sweeping floors is "being a normal productive worker". It doesn't take skilled labor, to begin with.

Also, can we stop referring to these jobs as "unskilled labor" entirely?

They require skillsets and are actually pretty vital jobs, but the inability of people to opt out of the labor market means they are not paid commensurate to their actual economic value.

[Kaleredar]

Oh, they do carry weight, and in the right way too.

You're the one saying "you're taking his words too seriously!" or "well you shouldn't pay attention to that part of what he said; it's not important!"

So apparently... they don't carry weight, if you should just ignore parts of what he says.

Making up stuff again?
Interesting how you're constantly unable to tell the difference between legal and illegal.

You described murder being bad, not because it's illegal, but because it's inherently bad. I.e, not because it's "illegal murder," but because it's "murder."

Then you pointed out that illegal immigration wasn't bad just because it had "illegal" before it. Therefore implying that it's bad because it's... immigration?

- - - Updated - - -

So your solution is instantaneous endless expansion and I am supposed to pretend to take you seriously?

"Instantaneous endless expansion?"

What are you even talking about?

You think the entirety of Mexico would just stand up and walk into the United States? And even if they did, the US' population is like three times the size of Mexico's.

Moreover... you then have a much greater population needing to buy and consume goods coupled with a massive increase in the work force. And again, if you're suggesting there's some sort of "paucity of consumer goods" in the US, you're... well, pretty squarely wrong.

[Malaky]

You described murder being bad, not because it's illegal, but because it's inherently bad. I.e, not because it's "illegal murder," but because it's "murder."

And why is murder bad? Because it carries harm, buddy.
That's the deciding factor.

If illegal immigration was utterly harmless I couldn't care less about it.

[Kaleredar]

And why is murder bad? Because it carries harm, buddy.
That's the deciding factor.

If illegal immigration was utterly harmless I couldn't care less about it.

So then the harm is that it... IS illegal? If it were made significantly easier to immigrate legally then there wouldn't be an issue, now would there, then?

So why aren't republicans doing that, instead of trying to dump inordinate amounts of money to build nonsense walls?

As far as the "harm" caused by illegal immigrants, like I said... they have zero statistical impact on violent crime statistics and comprise only 3% of the US population.

[Whiskyjack]

1> Consumers have significant value to a capitalist market, just by dint of being consumers. Consumer interests and support have been the keystone of capitalist theory dating way back to Adam Smith; focusing on producers is a mistake.

2> You aren't exclusively adding consumers. That's just factually incorrect. Many of these immigrants will work.



Picking fruit or sweeping floors is "being a normal productive worker". It doesn't take skilled labor, to begin with.



Given the above, this conclusion is simply incorrect, for multiple reasons.

It works if you accept a ever poorer standard of living. There is a reason why there is a fall in home ownership and debt culture has risen. If you flood the country with low skilled workers their labor becomes worth less and less. There are admittedly other ways to redress this problem. Companies caught using illegal immigrants need to be faced with destructive fines not a tap on the wrist for example.

I just never see this as possible there isn't the political will to do so. I look at the world as it is and plan around that. We have vastly different views on what makes a healthy economy. I look at the buying power for the average citizen whole I believe you look at overall GDP.

We are going to come to different conclusions.

[Malaky]

So then the harm is that it... IS illegal? If it were made significantly easier to immigrate legally then there wouldn't be an issue, now would there, then?
So why aren't republicans doing that, instead of

Blah blah spare me the nonsense.
There are many problems with illegal immigration, first of all the fact that you have no idea who's coming in and how many.
You wouldn't open your house to any stranger who wants to come in, would you? Doubt it.

[Zaydin]

Blah blah spare me the nonsense.
There are many problems with illegal immigration, first of all the fact that you have no idea who's coming in and how many.
You wouldn't open your house to any stranger who wants to come in, would you? Doubt it.

Yeah and a wall won't do shit to impact most illegal immigration since most people in the country illegally first came here legally and then overstayed their visas and came in via airplane.

[Cthulhu 2020]

What a bizarre thread. Nobody expected the wall to be impregnable, not even Trump.

What're you on about?

Wall logic then: THE WALL WILL BE 60 FEET TALL AND RUN 30 FEET UNDERGROUND, NO TUNNELS OR ROPE WILL EASILY HELP MIGRANTS GO OVER OR UNDER IT. IT WILL BE IMPREGNABLE STEEL REINFORCED CONCRETE THAT'S 6 FEET THICK, WE ARE GOING TO STOP ALL BORDER CROSSING!

Wall logic now that the limp dick wall fence has been breached: Well duh, nobody said the wall would be perfect, we all knew it would be breached easily, why are you guys making a big deal about it?

"So why do we need to spend tens of billions of dollars on a wall that won't even work for its intended purpose?"

"Because Mexicans. Shut up."

[Endus]

It works if you accept a ever poorer standard of living. There is a reason why there is a fall in home ownership and debt culture has risen.

There is no such correlation. No economists tie any part of the housing bubble to immigration. There hasn't been any amelioration in these figures as illegal immigration has declined. It's a claim without any basis in fact.

We're "coming to different conclusions" because you seem to think your imagination is the same as the facts. And it's flatly not.

[Kaleredar]

Blah blah spare me the nonsense.
There are many problems with illegal immigration, first of all the fact that you have no idea who's coming in and how many.
You wouldn't open your house to any stranger who wants to come in, would you? Doubt it.

So then why don't republicans make it easier for would-be law abiding immigrants to immigrate? Instead of having to wait decades for processing or suffer persecution in the country they're from while they wait or be kept in cages on the border?

And as for "vetting people because they're sending rapist drug dealers" do you have any proof that they contribute significantly to violent crime? Every statistic I have seen is that they have zero effect. If anything, by refusing to do anything about immigration reform, you're just diluting the pool of actual undocumented immigrants that could be problematic by sending immigration services after ones with no violent or problematic behaviors with equal fervor.

And as this thread has borne out, no "building a stronger, better wall to keep them ALL out!" will not work, has not worked, and will never work. So really, you're just making it more difficult for immigration officials to catch actually dangerous undocumented immigrants by supporting a broken system. People will always immigrate to the United States so long as it's better than wherever it is they're coming from. And if you make it unnecessarily difficult and restrictive, they'll just do it illegally. So instead of vetting the people coming in, you're basically shunting a massive glut of non-problematic people into being radio static that distracts from the actual criminal elements you so detest.

So we come back, once again, to... if you, or the republican party, has no problem with "legal immigrants," why make it so difficult to immigrate to the United States? If it's done legally, why care? Are you going to tell me that the currently broken system is "adequate?" Because I'd wager that the "illegals" you rant and rave against are pretty good evidence that no, it is not adequate. And not because the "wall isn't tall enough" or because "the INS doesn't have enough money to kick down all the doors they want." But because the actual immigration system is abysmal.

- - - Updated - - -

It works if you accept a ever poorer standard of living. There is a reason why there is a fall in home ownership and debt culture has risen. If you flood the country with low skilled workers their labor becomes worth less and less. There are admittedly other ways to redress this problem. Companies caught using illegal immigrants need to be faced with destructive fines not a tap on the wrist for example.

I just never see this as possible there isn't the political will to do so. I look at the world as it is and plan around that. We have vastly different views on what makes a healthy economy. I look at the buying power for the average citizen whole I believe you look at overall GDP.

We are going to come to different conclusions.

...So you blame "falling home ownership, a rise in debts and poorer standards of living" on the 3% of the US population that is comprised of illegal immigrants?

That doesn't math out there, bucko.

[Whiskyjack]

There is no such correlation. No economists tie any part of the housing bubble to immigration. There hasn't been any amelioration in these figures as illegal immigration has declined. It's a claim without any basis in fact.

We're "coming to different conclusions" because you seem to think your imagination is the same as the facts. And it's flatly not.

The housing bubble and the rising price of homes are two different issues... you must grasp the concept that when there is a lack of labor that laborers can leverage their work for higher profits?

I'm trying to keep this simple so the layman can follow it.

- - - Updated - - -

So then why don't republicans make it easier for would-be law abiding immigrants to immigrate? Instead of having to wait decades for processing or suffer persecution in the country they're from while they wait or be kept in cages on the border?

And as for "vetting people because they're sending rapist drug dealers" do you have any proof that they contribute significantly to violent crime? Every statistic I have seen is that they have zero effect. If anything, by refusing to do anything about immigration reform, you're just diluting the pool of actual undocumented immigrants that could be problematic by sending immigration services after ones with no violent or problematic behaviors with equal fervor.

And as this thread has borne out, no "building a stronger, better wall to keep them ALL out!" will not work, has not worked, and will never work. So really, you're just making it more difficult for immigration officials to catch actually dangerous undocumented immigrants by supporting a broken system. People will always immigrate to the United States so long as it's better than wherever it is they're coming from. And if you make it unnecessarily difficult and restrictive, they'll just do it illegally. So instead of vetting the people coming in, you're basically shunting a massive glut of non-problematic people into being radio static that distracts from the actual criminal elements you so detest.

So we come back, once again, to... if you, or the republican party, has no problem with "legal immigrants," why make it so difficult to immigrate to the United States? If it's done legally, why care? Are you going to tell me that the currently broken system is "adequate?" Because I'd wager that the "illegals" you rant and rave against are pretty good evidence that no, it is not adequate. And not because the "wall isn't tall enough" or because "the INS doesn't have enough money to kick down all the doors they want." But because the actual immigration system is abysmal.

- - - Updated - - -



...So you blame "falling home ownership, a rise in debts and poorer standards of living" on the 3% of the US population that is comprised of illegal immigrants?

That doesn't math out there, bucko.

In part.. yes it isn't the only thing automation and forgien trade plays its part as well

[Malaky]

So then why don't republicans make it easier for would-be law abiding immigrants to immigrate? Instead of having to wait decades for processing or suffer persecution in the country they're from while they wait or be kept in cages on the border?

Aside of the whole "cages, suffering and persecution!" propaganda, because uncontrolled legal immigration also carries harm, namely if that too many people come without a system to support them the country suffers and worsens. The first purpose of a country are its citizens and its sustainability, not foreigner non-citizens, even if some of those do aspire to become one.
You wouldn't invite 1000 people the same day to come to your house, would you? Think not.

And as for "vetting people because they're sending rapist drug dealers" do you have any proof that they contribute significantly to violent crime?

I couldn't care less about what "significantly" means to you. One coming in raping or killing an american citizen is one too many, vetting is necessary.
You don't get to pass the border of a country, any country, as you please.

- - - Updated - - -

So you’re against everything that carries harm? Like, say, a wall that causes environmental harm while doing nothing to curb the things it’s meant to? While also harming the children of US service members who lost funding for their educations due to funds Trump put towards this boondoggle? How about guns? Clearly they cause harm as we average a mass shooting per day. What about fast food? Or privatized medicine?

Like any sane human being I weight pros and cons and decide whether the harm involved is acceptable or not.
Illegal immigration is a strict nope to me.

[Endus]

The housing bubble and the rising price of homes are two different issues... you must grasp the concept that when there is a lack of labor that laborers can leverage their work for higher profits?

There won't ever be a "lack of labour". 0% unemployment is essentially impossible. There is no developed nation of the planet that hits that.

There's also no identifiable correlation between illegal immigration figures and the unemployment rate. So you're again making stuff up that has no basis in reality.

I'm trying to keep this simple so the layman can follow it.

No, you're making shit up. Nothing you're arguing has any basis in fact. You're insisting I accept causative connections between factors when there isn't even a correlation between the two.