Should the wall be build to keep away immigrants?

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

Ummm, I guess I am ignoring how many of these people are criminals. Tell us, exactly how many of them are guilty of drug selling, murder, kidnapping, and prostitution. I want credited stats on the number of these refugees who are violent criminals! I'll bet those "poor refugees" would be willing to work for less money than what you expect to get paid. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.

We can't tell for certain, THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE WALL!!!  We don't know just who is invading, but we can be certain Central American gang members are among them.  What we DO know is that "In 2017, ICE "arrested more than 127,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions or facing charges of breaking our nation's’ laws," and removed nearly 5,000 gang members".  Even ISIS is trying to get their members into the US thru the caravan.  My point is that we need to stop illegal border crossings and get control of our immigration system.  What point you're trying to make escapes me.

These people are starving and can't find work, so you think they would want to go to Mexico? I would also like some credited statistics on who it is that is "coaching" these people. Again, your not making much sense here. I think you still think these people are only coming here to annoy you. Even though I hope it annoys you alot, I'm sure they didn't have you in mind when they decided to try and find a better life for themselves.

You really think they're motivated by starvation and looking work?!?  Obviously that isn't the priority on the minds of these would-be illegals, the Mexican government has already offered them shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs; in fact, the Mexicans offered them a lot more than the US is. 

And again with the stats.  I tell you what, you get me exact stats on how many illegals are in each state, and I'll get you stats on how many are criminals and how many have been coached.  Deal?  Make sure you get every one, don't miss any.  As for who is coaching them, everybody; from the National Immigrant Youth Alliance to activist lawyers to Mexican cartels.

cheesycheese

@CYDdharta
post a link to a website saying statistics

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

@CYDdharta
post a link to a website saying statistics

I'll tell you the same thing I told Pilot, you give me exact stats on how many illegals there are in the US and where they're located, and I'll get you all the stats you could ask for.

cheesycheese

CYDdharta said:

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

Ummm, I guess I am ignoring how many of these people are criminals. Tell us, exactly how many of them are guilty of drug selling, murder, kidnapping, and prostitution. I want credited stats on the number of these refugees who are violent criminals! I'll bet those "poor refugees" would be willing to work for less money than what you expect to get paid. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.

We can't tell for certain, THAT'S WHY WE NEED THE WALL!!!  We don't know just who is invading, but we can be certain Central American gang members are among them.  What we DO know is that "In 2017, ICE "arrested more than 127,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions or facing charges of breaking our nation's’ laws," and removed nearly 5,000 gang members".  Even ISIS is trying to get their members into the US thru the caravan.  My point is that we need to stop illegal border crossings and get control of our immigration system.  What point you're trying to make escapes me.

These people are starving and can't find work, so you think they would want to go to Mexico? I would also like some credited statistics on who it is that is "coaching" these people. Again, your not making much sense here. I think you still think these people are only coming here to annoy you. Even though I hope it annoys you alot, I'm sure they didn't have you in mind when they decided to try and find a better life for themselves.

You really think they're motivated by starvation and looking work?!?  Obviously that isn't the priority on the minds of these would-be illegals, the Mexican government has already offered them shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs; in fact, the Mexicans offered them a lot more than the US is. 

And again with the stats.  I tell you what, you get me exact stats on how many illegals are in each state, and I'll get you stats on how many are criminals and how many have been coached.  Deal?  Make sure you get every one, don't miss any.  As for who is coaching them, everybody; from the National Immigrant Youth Alliance to activist lawyers to Mexican cartels.

so by your logic because a small minority of them are criminals everyone else isn't deserving of a better life so what is your reasoning for this because you said on other debated that your reasoning isn't skin colour

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

so by your logic because a small minority of them are criminals everyone else isn't deserving of a better life so what is your reasoning for this because you said on other debated that your reasoning isn't skin colour

What is it with you and skin color?  How did you come to be such a racist?

Every single one of them is a criminal.  Some are worse than most, but, stating the blatantly obvious, you can't enter a country illegally without breaking the law.  If they're truly interested in leading a better life, they'll come to the US legally.

cheesycheese

@CYDdharta yes they will wait two years for america to process their application and also i’m arguing that people from other cultures are just as deserving of a good life as we are how is that racist

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

@CYDdharta yes they will wait two years for america to process their application and also i’m arguing that people from other cultures are just as deserving of a good life as we are how is that racist

They have no intention of waiting, they're planning on sneaking in.  They'll only be waiting if they get caught and decide to make an asylum claim.

If you're not a racist, why are you the first to bring up skin color?

cheesycheese

CYDdharta said:

cheesycheese said:

@CYDdharta yes they will wait two years for america to process their application and also i’m arguing that people from other cultures are just as deserving of a good life as we are how is that racist

They have no intention of waiting, they're planning on sneaking in.  They'll only be waiting if they get caught and decide to make an asylum claim.

If you're not a racist, why are you the first to bring up skin color?

With no money they could easily die within two years so don’t just assume that law equals right the law is not made by people who aren’t politically driven and besides talking about skin colour does not make you a racist racism is when you believe that just because of skin colour people are inferior

racism

/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/

noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

   "a programme to combat racism"

   synonyms:

   racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance; More

   • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

     "theories of racism"

CYDdharta

Since you don't seem to know how to use punctuation, I'll have to try to turn your post into something coherent.

cheesycheese said:

With no money they could easily die within two years

So they should have stayed where they were.

so don’t just assume that law equals right

No one does.

the law is not made by people who aren’t politically driven

But it's still the law and should be applied to everyone.  If the laws are unjust repeal them.

and besides talking about skin colour does not make you a racist racism is when you believe that just because of skin colour people are inferior

racism

/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/

noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

   "a programme to combat racism"

   synonyms:

   racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance; More

   • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

     "theories of racism"

If you prefer, I can just refer to you as a bigot.  Whichever you want.

cheesycheese

CYDdharta said:

Since you don't seem to know how to use punctuation, I'll have to try to turn your post into something coherent.

cheesycheese said:

With no money they could easily die within two years

So they should have stayed where they were.

why

so don’t just assume that law equals right

No one does.

then don’t assume that the law is just

the law is not made by people who aren’t politically driven

But it's still the law and should be applied to everyone.  If the laws are unjust repeal them.

ever heard of corruption

and besides talking about skin colour does not make you a racist racism is when you believe that just because of skin colour people are inferior

racism

/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/

noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

   "a programme to combat racism"

   synonyms:

   racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance; More

   • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

     "theories of racism"

If you prefer, I can just refer to you as a bigot.  Whichever you want.

you are being hypocritical this is a debate website the aim is to convince someone that they are wrong if you are going to call me a bigot for arguing then don’t argue with me

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

why

Once again, the Mexican government has already offered them shelter, medical attention, schooling and jobs.  Obviously they aren't worried about dying due to lack of money.

then don’t assume that the law is just

If the laws are unjust, change or repeal them.  Until then, they should be enforced.  You don't get to ignore them because you don't like them.

ever heard of corruption

Who hasn't?  A great illustration of corruption is ignoring laws rather than enforcing them because it helps you (for Democrats, more Dem voters, for businesses, more unprotected people that can be exploited) even though it's bad for the nation as a whole.

you are being hypocritical this is a debate website the aim is to convince someone that they are wrong if you are going to call me a bigot for arguing then don’t argue with me

LOL, you try to shut down the discussion with bogus claims of racism, and you think it's hypocritical of me to call you on it?!?  Nope, it doesn't work that way.  If you're going to throw the race card around like it's the only card in the deck, I'm not going to let it slide, I'm going to point out your bigotry.

cheesycheese

bigot

/ˈbɪɡət/

noun

1. a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

   "don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

   synonyms:

   dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person; More

   
   If it is bigotry to debate then everyone in this website is a bigot

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

bigot

/ˈbɪɡət/

noun

1. a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

   "don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"

   synonyms:

   dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person; More

   
   If it is bigotry to debate then everyone in this website is a bigot

You aren't debating when you indiscriminately throw around the race card, you're trying to squelch debate.

JohnSimpson

I say, rather than building a wall, which will take a lot of time, resources, and money, we should instead increase military forces of some kind at the border. The wall would not work, since there would still be many ways for illegals to get in. However, if we increase, let's say, the National Guard down there, which Trump is currently doing, we can focus on attacking the main threat of illegals: criminals entering our country. Most illegals could just be sent back with a warning, especially desperate families. However, people identified as criminals may be held and sent to Mexican law enforcement. Extremely violent and dangerous criminals who attack could be shot. We don't need a wall. We need human beings down there that can make good judgements on what to do. 

cheesycheese

JohnSimpson said:

I say, rather than building a wall, which will take a lot of time, resources, and money, we should instead increase military forces of some kind at the border. The wall would not work, since there would still be many ways for illegals to get in. However, if we increase, let's say, the National Guard down there, which Trump is currently doing, we can focus on attacking the main threat of illegals: criminals entering our country. Most illegals could just be sent back with a warning, especially desperate families. However, people identified as criminals may be held and sent to Mexican law enforcement. Extremely violent and dangerous criminals who attack could be shot. We don't need a wall. We need human beings down there that can make good judgements on what to do. 

How could it harm anyone to let them in

CYDdharta

Zombieguy1987 said:

So, building a border wall is good for America?

anyone remember the Maginot line? 

An impenetrable fortification wall meant to halt the German army from attacking France?

Considered the one of the hardest walls to bypass

 

Want to know how the Germans attacked France?

They went AROUND it!



The German invasion of France. The Maginot line is in black.

How will illegal immigrants deal with Trumps wall?

They'll go around it!

HOW?

By sea, air and digging underneath it! Or, if it's 30 feet high, a 35 foot tall ladder will bypass it!

If Trump realizes how easy it will be bypassed, it will be trillions of dollars wasted

The wall doesn't need to be impenetrable to be effective. 

cheesycheese

CYDdharta said:

Zombieguy1987 said:

So, building a border wall is good for America?

anyone remember the Maginot line? 

An impenetrable fortification wall meant to halt the German army from attacking France?

Considered the one of the hardest walls to bypass

 

Want to know how the Germans attacked France?

They went AROUND it!



The German invasion of France. The Maginot line is in black.

How will illegal immigrants deal with Trumps wall?

They'll go around it!

HOW?

By sea, air and digging underneath it! Or, if it's 30 feet high, a 35 foot tall ladder will bypass it!

If Trump realizes how easy it will be bypassed, it will be trillions of dollars wasted

The wall doesn't need to be impenetrable to be effective. 

Actually if it is penetrable then everyone will know through social media and so it will decrease illegal immigration by a tiny margin but not trillions of dollars worth

CYDdharta

cheesycheese said:

Actually if it is penetrable then everyone will know through social media and so it will decrease illegal immigration by a tiny margin but not trillions of dollars worth

No, that means there will only be a few points of entry in to the US, which is much much better than what we have now.  It takes fewer law enforcement officers and resources to monitor a few points of entry.

MayCaesar

We can always just build the Iron Curtain. It has worked well for Soviet Union and multiple other socialist states at keeping people out... and in. This wall idea stems from small-scale thinking. Trump needs to also think about how he is going to keep the business owners in when they attempt to flee to more international trade-friendly economical systems.

We should also erect Iron Curtains around each state. We have quite a few immigrants from Illinois and Michigan here in Indiana, fleeing high taxes and living costs and finding the real estate heaven here. This is not reasonable; they come here and bring their socialist drugs with them, they assault our libertarian system and elect people who want to increase our taxes in order to fund these arrivals.

Finally, I want the Iron Curtain around my city. Our average salary to living costs ratio is one of the best in the country, and we cannot allow people from barbaric undeveloped cities to come.

If you elect me as your next president, I promise to implement all these policies. No longer will we bow before the outsiders!

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

We can always just build the Iron Curtain. It has worked well for Soviet Union and multiple other socialist states at keeping people out... and in. This wall idea stems from small-scale thinking. Trump needs to also think about how he is going to keep the business owners in when they attempt to flee to more international trade-friendly economical systems.

We should also erect Iron Curtains around each state. We have quite a few immigrants from Illinois and Michigan here in Indiana, fleeing high taxes and living costs and finding the real estate heaven here. This is not reasonable; they come here and bring their socialist drugs with them, they assault our libertarian system and elect people who want to increase our taxes in order to fund these arrivals.

Finally, I want the Iron Curtain around my city. Our average salary to living costs ratio is one of the best in the country, and we cannot allow people from barbaric undeveloped cities to come.

If you elect me as your next president, I promise to implement all these policies. No longer will we bow before the outsiders!

No, no; what we need to do is throw open the ports of entry.  In fact, let's erase the border altogether, Ameri-Mexico.  Abolish ICE like the Dems want, that'll help. Let's get rid of Customs while we're at it.  We should get rid of passports ASAP, make it illegal for anyone to ask for any type of ID for any reason.  Think of how much stronger the US would be.

piloteer

CYDdharta said:

No, no; what we need to do is throw open the ports of entry.  In fact, let's erase the border altogether, Ameri-Mexico.  Abolish ICE like the Dems want, that'll help. Let's get rid of Customs while we're at it.  We should get rid of passports ASAP, make it illegal for anyone to ask for any type of ID for any reason.  Think of how much stronger the US would be.

Finally you're starting to get it. Could you imagine how much I would save in taxes if what you said actually happened. 

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

Finally you're starting to get it. Could you imagine how much I would save in taxes if what you said actually happened. 

Nothing, you'd have to pay that much more in insurance to cover losses from the increased crime rate.

John_C_87

The First Amendment which introduces freedom of speech and freedom of press as a border from grievance means that there is a way to place order to resolve public grievance issues, issues that may have legal consequence to the many people when placed as a united state by law. Resolution of governing issue in the case of proposed public usage of fencing in relationship to a boundary as border to land publicly and privately held between nations is simply one of these moments.

Direct answer to the question is should a united State be created by democracy in a united republic designed by Untied union of purposeful States for governing principle build a fence to obstruct people? In detail of the obstruct set by verbal and written claim describing a land, a process of entry into a neighboring nations as also problematic by two sides of debate? No it should not. In confusion of the many issue created by a situation with many conflict created by movements of people. Could it be said that in haste a claim of building a fence for the only purpose of keeping people from uncheck movements was wrong?

This Wall issue does not mean that the use of freedom of speech should be used to turn legal proposals and their process of building a fence along a projected canal rout for shipping, water runoff, and public services to community as wrong as well. It should be obstructed due to the illegal nature of wording in order to stop the civil liberty taken on a much greater idea of building a fence to stop people movement only for a combined state of Constitutional right.

This Constitutional right does at this point no include any and all negations which would need to take place between the rightful deed holders of properties in line with a projected massive canal for international and national public server. Beyond the indepe3ndent short term needs of Governing States.

MayCaesar

CYDdharta said:

MayCaesar said:

We can always just build the Iron Curtain. It has worked well for Soviet Union and multiple other socialist states at keeping people out... and in. This wall idea stems from small-scale thinking. Trump needs to also think about how he is going to keep the business owners in when they attempt to flee to more international trade-friendly economical systems.

We should also erect Iron Curtains around each state. We have quite a few immigrants from Illinois and Michigan here in Indiana, fleeing high taxes and living costs and finding the real estate heaven here. This is not reasonable; they come here and bring their socialist drugs with them, they assault our libertarian system and elect people who want to increase our taxes in order to fund these arrivals.

Finally, I want the Iron Curtain around my city. Our average salary to living costs ratio is one of the best in the country, and we cannot allow people from barbaric undeveloped cities to come.

If you elect me as your next president, I promise to implement all these policies. No longer will we bow before the outsiders!

No, no; what we need to do is throw open the ports of entry.  In fact, let's erase the border altogether, Ameri-Mexico.  Abolish ICE like the Dems want, that'll help. Let's get rid of Customs while we're at it.  We should get rid of passports ASAP, make it illegal for anyone to ask for any type of ID for any reason.  Think of how much stronger the US would be.

I do not care about the US. I only care about my little city besieged by immigrants from less successful cities, who drain our resources and push people who want to change our successful economical model to better serve their needs through into power. Iron Curtain it is! Want to visit? Fine, but do make sure you make over $100,000 a year and give a donation to our city equal to 50% of your yearly income.

I am telling you, MayCaesar-2020 is what you want. My policies will address all the problems you have been having, that professional politicians could not fix!

---

On a serious note, ironically your proposal indeed would make the US stronger than it is now. It would put even the European Union free movement model to shame, and definitely make the US into a magnet of investors and rich asset holders, as well as cheap labor. After all, our Great Leader does want to bring jobs back to the US, and there is no better way to do it than bring the workers themselves to the US.

CYDdharta

MayCaesar said:

I do not care about the US. I only care about my little city besieged by immigrants from less successful cities, who drain our resources and push people who want to change our successful economical model to better serve their needs through into power. Iron Curtain it is! Want to visit? Fine, but do make sure you make over $100,000 a year and give a donation to our city equal to 50% of your yearly income.

I am telling you, MayCaesar-2020 is what you want. My policies will address all the problems you have been having, that professional politicians could not fix!

You're just lying, all you care about is the US.  You need to expand your thinking and realize that people outside your borders need your help.  There are people in Latin America who can't hold a job.  You need to be more sympathetic.  From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.  You live in the most able society in history, you owe it to your neighbors in the south to share your largess. 

On a serious note, ironically your proposal indeed would make the US stronger than it is now. It would put even the European Union free movement model to shame, and definitely make the US into a magnet of investors and rich asset holders, as well as cheap labor. After all, our Great Leader does want to bring jobs back to the US, and there is no better way to do it than bring the workers themselves to the US.

On the contrary, it would weaken the nation immensely.  We'd be the magnet for everyone in Central and South America who couldn't hold a job. 

MayCaesar

@CYDdharta ;

No, sympathy is for your dear leader who cannot sleep over Americans losing jobs to the immigrants. Me, I only care about our little city that is constantly besieged by invaders such as you from poor undeveloped areas. We should build the Iron Curtain patrolled by automated robots shooting everything on sight - we can afford that, we are very rich and have one of the highest concentrations of engineers and scientists in the world. Whenever someone approaches the curtain, the robots automatically scan their face, perform cross-matching with our electronic database and only hold fire in case the identified individual earns more than $100,000 a year in net income. A yearly pass to enter the city costs half of their yearly net income, but they can obtain the Preferred Pass granting them a lifetime access to the city for 5 yearly net incomes.

Leaving the city is allowed, but the individual must relinquish all of his possessions barring the clothes on their back when doing so. The possessions are sold on a monthly auction, and the collected money is used to negotiate trade channels (with 50% tariffs on everything) with the few privileged cities we recognize. We definitely do not recognize any city with the median income of less than $75,000.

My vision is impeccable. Trump has a very small mind for such a big in size person, he does not realize the potential of these ideas - but I will get them realized, and the swamp will be drained so hard, even the Amazon River will be merely a scratch in a history book!

piloteer

@CYDdharta

What increased crime rate are you referring too? 
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy.https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/two-charts-demolish-the-notion-that-immigrants-here-illegally-commit-more-crime/?utm_term=.4c7bdd2b1674.

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

What increased crime rate are you referring too? 
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy.https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/two-charts-demolish-the-notion-that-immigrants-here-illegally-commit-more-crime/?utm_term=.4c7bdd2b1674.

Every one of them is a criminal, hence the illegal in illegal alien, but over and above that;

Illegal Immigration and Crime

9 Things You Need To Know About Illegal Immigration And Crime

Undocumented immigrants, U.S. Citizens, and Convicted Criminals in Arizona

John_C_87

The problem isn’t private citizens building fences on private property with their own money. The issue is us of federal and State finding to build a fence that is creating a united state that is openly shared and connected to the taxpayer. Naming the fence a wall will not change the crime that is not tested in court. Removing the type of exclusion in the justification of a fence will remove the questionable interoperation as alibi to Constitutional wrong.

John_C_87

Interoperation, there are two or more things that must work together held within the issue of a Wall/Fence. They are clearly not working together in the way they have been connected in relationship to a Border wall/fence

piloteer

@CYDdharta

The daily wire is NOT a legitimate news source. Snopes and Factcheck.org have both refuted stories that were falsely reported on, and stories that were 100% made up by the daily wire. It's a nazi-sympathy opinion site. If you want to prove to me that illegal immigrants are causing crime to increase in the US, you'll have to prove this study wrong! This is not put together by any news organization, it's a study conducted by the Cato institute.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant.

Over and above that (who says that?!?!), this study shows that where immigrant populations exist in the US (including illegal immigrants) crime rates fall. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175

So instead of posting links to news organizations that can be called into question, I've posted conclusive studies that disprove what you're saying. If you would like to systematically dispute the results in these studies then you're more than welcome to. 

My apologies, I realize the links I posted in my prior argument don't actually work. This article is chock full of studies that show not only are immigrant communities NOT "crime infested", but immigrants don't cost taxpayers money. They are beneficial to the US economy, and they put into the tax system more than they take out!
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy.

What you're trying to do is convince others that we MUST pay higher taxes and our national debt MUST increase for us to pay for a wall that will be ineffective at keeping out a population that represents no threat to the US, and has been proven to be beneficial to the US economy and helps to lessen the tax burden for all taxpayers. You are not making sense! 

cheesycheese

MayCaesar said:

We can always just build the Iron Curtain. It has worked well for Soviet Union and multiple other socialist states at keeping people out... and in. This wall idea stems from small-scale thinking. Trump needs to also think about how he is going to keep the business owners in when they attempt to flee to more international trade-friendly economical systems.

We should also erect Iron Curtains around each state. We have quite a few immigrants from Illinois and Michigan here in Indiana, fleeing high taxes and living costs and finding the real estate heaven here. This is not reasonable; they come here and bring their socialist drugs with them, they assault our libertarian system and elect people who want to increase our taxes in order to fund these arrivals.

Finally, I want the Iron Curtain around my city. Our average salary to living costs ratio is one of the best in the country, and we cannot allow people from barbaric undeveloped cities to come.

If you elect me as your next president, I promise to implement all these policies. No longer will we bow before the outsiders!

ever heard of the berlin wall the impenetrable wall used to keep people in west berlin and look what happened to that wall
and while it took 50 years to bring down the mexicans are the 11th largest group in the world which is a group much larger than the population of west germany

John_C_87

@ piloteer

What it looks like is a way to increase the overall cost by incriminating governing state into a criminal idea to do nothing more that promote advertising, and instigate greater pubic obstacle by taking advantage of a much bigger legal issue. Part of what is set in the United State of immigration is citizenship of a nation and how it affects the common wealth of states inside the nation.

Again there is a crime of illegal immigration this does not mean a new law will best suit directing a public common defense. The justification used in Eminent domain matters as it is a public service, while one public service may be viewed as acquit to perpetuate an more than likely illegal action, democracy suggests that a larger united state in the area of public service offers greater service to a community that is being asked to take part.

1.       A wall/Fence helps private land, state, and then Nation by limit to movement and is directed at a wave of migration of people as reason.

 

2.       A canal from the Gulf of Mexico to Pacific Ocean helps global rising water levels, global transportation services, State Water supply, EPA concerns over Highway storm water runoff, state energy supply, local farming, transportation infrastructure, and finally recreation and hospitality services in the Southern United States.

piloteer

@John_C_87

I have absolutely no concern for "eminent domain" and nor do I consider it a valid institution in the US. I've searched through the constitution foward and back, and I found nothing that says I need to be concerned about what's good for the public. I, as a taxpayer am somehow expected to fund this fence, and plain and simply, I don't want to pay for it. My concern is myself and myself alone, and the constitution says that I can feel that way and there is nothing anybody can do about it. If private businesses feel fit, then they should be allowed to build a wall on their private land, with their own money, not public money, and not on public land. As far as the American taxpayers being swindled into yet another scheme to seperate us from our money, I have no sympathy for government theft. Furthermore, as a business owner, I find the cost of American labor to be vomit inducing. These immigrants represent low cost labor. There is NO valid evidence that shows illegal immigrants are dangerous criminals, or not beneficial to the American economy. The facts are facts, illegal immigrants actually put in more money to the tax system than they take out. On average, illegal immigrants contribute the same amount as naturalized citizens. Given these fact, I find no need for the American taxpayer to give into more government red tape. If you wanna build a wall with your own money on your own land, so be it, but stay out of my wallet! That last sentence was not directed at you specifically, it was directed at the "royal we"!

piloteer

@cheesycheese

I'm not absolutely certain, but I think "@MayCaesar was being sarcastic!

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

The daily wire is NOT a legitimate news source. Snopes and Factcheck.org have both refuted stories that were falsely reported on, and stories that were 100% made up by the daily wire. It's a nazi-sympathy opinion site. If you want to prove to me that illegal immigrants are causing crime to increase in the US, you'll have to prove this study wrong! This is not put together by any news organization, it's a study conducted by the Cato institute.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant.

Over and above that (who says that?!?!), this study shows that where immigrant populations exist in the US (including illegal immigrants) crime rates fall. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1745-9125.12175

So instead of posting links to news organizations that can be called into question, I've posted conclusive studies that disprove what you're saying. If you would like to systematically dispute the results in these studies then you're more than welcome to. 

My apologies, I realize the links I posted in my prior argument don't actually work. This article is chock full of studies that show not only are immigrant communities NOT "crime infested", but immigrants don't cost taxpayers money. They are beneficial to the US economy, and they put into the tax system more than they take out!
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy.

What you're trying to do is convince others that we MUST pay higher taxes and our national debt MUST increase for us to pay for a wall that will be ineffective at keeping out a population that represents no threat to the US, and has been proven to be beneficial to the US economy and helps to lessen the tax burden for all taxpayers. You are not making sense! 

Bias studies, like the one you cited, produce biased results.

    The Cato study selectively sources data from the Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS), and it notes that what we’re reading is the “[a]uthor’s analysis” of that data. In other words, Nowrasteh presents data in a way that suits his ends. Data analysts, like those in Cato’s salon, have an interest in producing specific results. Or as one data analyst says, “they know the results the analysis should find.”

    Nowrasteh’s study claims that among 952 total homicides, “native-born Americans were convicted of 885 homicides,” while “illegal immigrants were convicted of just 51 homicides.” Setting aside the fact that those 51 killings—like all crimes committed by illegal aliens—were completely avoidable, a few other questions come to mind.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/05/07/yes-npr-illegal-immigration-does-increase-violent-crime/


Additionally, I have posted a study that came to exactly the opposite conclusion, which you conveniently ignored.  Considering 5 of the 10 most lethal gangs in the US are of hispanic origin, this study seems more accurate than anything you're citing.  Beyond that, there is the HUGE economic drain of illegal aliens. 

There are approximately 3.7 million unlawful immigrant households in the U.S. These households impose a net fiscal burden of around $54.5 billion per year.

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer

Note that this uses the DHS estimate of 11 million illegals.  A recent Yale study doubles that estimate, which means the fiscal burden of illegals is over $100 billion per year.  How can needlessly throwing away $100 billion per year possibly be a benefit to the US?!? 

George_Horse

Zombieguy1987 said:
So, building a border wall is good for America?
anyone remember the Maginot line? 
An impenetrable fortification wall meant to halt the German army from attacking France?
Considered the one of the hardest walls to bypass
 
Want to know how the Germans attacked France?
They went AROUND it!

The German invasion of France. The Maginot line is in black.
How will illegal immigrants deal with Trumps wall?
They'll go around it!
HOW?
By sea, air and digging underneath it! Or, if it's 30 feet high, a 35 foot tall ladder will bypass it!
If Trump realizes how easy it will be bypassed, it will be trillions of dollars wasted

Europe and Mexico do NOT share the same geography. Another flaw is that the wall did NOT completely go along the northern border of France. Had they stretched that far, the Germans might have not succeeded in launching an attack on the French. With our wall, illegal immigration can be made a little more difficult. Its easy now because there are GAPS, no fencing, just gaps, where all they have to do is take more steps then they're in America. If the wall is not a good idea, how shall we handle the problem of illegal Immigration? Especially with the migrant caravan? What should be done about them? Should they be let in?

MayCaesar

@George_Horse

That a mere wall could have stopped German tanks and bomber jets is quite a stretch, to put it lightly. Walls do not stop modern weaponry; walls only can stop random trespassers, and even for that guard posts have to be put every 50 meters throughout the wall. The Berlin Wall required nearly 50,000 troops posted at any given time (and an order of magnitude more when counting the total involved personnel), and even so thousands people made it across. And that was a tiny wall within one city.

To make Trump's wall viable, one needs to invest hundreds billions dollars each year into it and involve millions individuals in its protection and maintenance. This is about the biggest waste of taxpayers' money I can think of when it comes to immigration policies.

This is the 21st century. That we are even seriously discussing "walls to stop illegal immigrants" is a sign of incredible degradation of inventiveness in the modern society. That said, people in the Congress seem above that. I doubt Trump is going to ever get funding for his wall from the federal budget, since even the senators most loyal to Trump realize what a waste it would be - a waste that would lose them the next election badly.

And even Trump himself seems disillusioned about the wall. The economy is booming, Trump's rating is rising, and he has all the chances to win the election-2020. I doubt he would want to jeopardize that perspective by repeating Obama's mistake and pouring a trillion dollars into something that has no chance of working.

piloteer

@CYDdharta

Your link to the heritage foundations 2013 update of a discredited "study" from 2007 does nothing to help your argument. In fact, some of the first people to call foul on this study was the conservative advocacy group Americans for tax reform, along with the Kemp foundation and the CATO institute. One of the most egregious flaws of this study was the fact that it calculated the tax burden from legal citizens in with illegal citizens when in factored in the legal spouses of illegal immigrants. The study was purposely based on "per household" data to shift the findings, and even the original author of it has disavowed it. 
https://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-immigration-study-fatally-flawed

The article from the American Greatness journal is NOT a study, it's an opinion piece on the article from NPR, that I posted earlier. 

Your posting of the Yale study is downright confusing, because not only does it do nothing to help your argument, it actually hurts it ALOT!!! If the average tax burden of all illegal immigrants is estimated at a certain level, then a study shows that the number of illegal immigrants were grossly underestimated, then the average tax burden for each individual illegal immagrant drops. Initial estimates were around 11million illegal immigrants. That study shows that the estimates could be somwhere around 22million. That means that the average tax burden for each individual immagrant could be as much as 50% less than initially thought. It also shows that violent crime rates per capita drops also. That was not a study that you wanted to be posting if you wanted to help your case.
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/10/09/som-study-estimates-higher-undocumented-immigration-numbers/

piloteer

@George_Horse

Yes, they should be let in. It will be no burden on taxpayers, it will help the GDP grow, and there's no valid evidence that shows illegal immigrants are more criminally dangerous than naturalized citizens. The wall WILL make federal taxes increase, it will increase our national debt, and there's no evidence that it will dramatically decrease illegal immigration.

TTKDB

The illegal immigrants have been coming into the country for 3 plus decades now.

Weren't they coming into the country prior to former President Ronald Reagan making the 2.7 million illegal immigrants that came into the country illegally, legalized citizens in 1986?

From Wikipedia: 

"Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986"

• "required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
• made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
• legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and;
• legalized undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language."

Now here we are 2018, and some are posing the question:

"Should the wall be build to keep away immigrants?"

If the illegal immigrants have been for 3 plus decades coming into the United States of America illegally, even after the passing of the (Immigration and Control Act in 1986) instead of legally, then yes a wall should be built.

It would seem that if some ignore the law about coming into the country illegally, then building a wall seems to be the constructive and correct coarse of action, in the light of some coming into the country illegally rather than legally.

Unless it maybe benefits the illegal immigrants to come into the United States illegally by not building a wall? 

To not build the wall, wouldn't that maybe in a sense be a way to reward the illegal immigrants for their efforts, by not constructing the wall, thus allowing them to come into the country as they please? 

A question for those who against the wall, are you pro United States of America, as well as pro law, or are you pro illegal immigrant, and maybe in a sense anti law? 

Or maybe some are pro illegal immigrant and pro law? 

But if some are maybe pro law while being pro illegal immigrant at the same time, wouldn't that be creating a conflict of interest situation for a pro law and a pro illegal immigrant supporter? 

TTKDB

@atomicgunner:

Please see my above argument.

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

@CYDdharta

Your link to the heritage foundations 2013 update of a discredited "study" from 2007 does nothing to help your argument. In fact, some of the first people to call foul on this study was the conservative advocacy group Americans for tax reform, along with the Kemp foundation and the CATO institute. One of the most egregious flaws of this study was the fact that it calculated the tax burden from legal citizens in with illegal citizens when in factored in the legal spouses of illegal immigrants. The study was purposely based on "per household" data to shift the findings, and even the original author of it has disavowed it. 
https://www.cato.org/blog/heritage-immigration-study-fatally-flawed

The article from the American Greatness journal is NOT a study, it's an opinion piece on the article from NPR, that I posted earlier.

Your objections are frivolous and/or wrong.  If CATO actually came up with a legitimate complaint, they would have published it, not just left it in a blog post by an illegal alien proponent.  And you're wrong, the author has certainly NOT disavowed it.

The American Greatness article directly refutes the CATO "study".  Next time, try something from a source that isn't pro-illegal.  I know that leaves out amnesty proponents like CATO, Jack Kemp and Grover Norquist, but maybe if you look really really hard you can find someone.

Your posting of the Yale study is downright confusing, because not only does it do nothing to help your argument, it actually hurts it ALOT!!! If the average tax burden of all illegal immigrants is estimated at a certain level, then a study shows that the number of illegal immigrants were grossly underestimated, then the average tax burden for each individual illegal immagrant drops. Initial estimates were around 11million illegal immigrants. That study shows that the estimates could be somwhere around 22million. That means that the average tax burden for each individual immagrant could be as much as 50% less than initially thought. It also shows that violent crime rates per capita drops also. That was not a study that you wanted to be posting if you wanted to help your case.
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/10/09/som-study-estimates-higher-undocumented-immigration-numbers/

You either haven't read the study or you don't understand it.  They took the total number of illegal households and multiplied them by the estimated the benefits (educational, community, etc.).  Since the Yale study estimates that there are more than twice as many illegal households as what the Heritage paper estimated, the cost is more than double what Heritage estimated.  If you cannot comprehend a study's methodology, you should probably just let it go.  In the future, I suggest you take Abraham Lincoln's advice "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

John_C_87

@piloteer ;

You should re-read the United States Constitution. The this time around pay particular attention to the part of the pre-amble which reads Common defense, General welfare, and posterity. Incrimination in to a criminal activity is not a legitimate common defense to the general welfare of a nation. Even with a claim of self-defense attached, it can be challenged to insure the tranquility.

By building a fence/wall for the single purpose of obstruction of a criminal possibility set for human safety there is an abandonment of the United States Constitution, as criminal acts are convictable by judicial due process, why concerns of safety are a declaration of independence. Eminent domain is the legal process to which taxation can be spent on public works which are described for the common defense of the general welfare.

By the way I do not want to build a wall/fence I want to build a canal from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean, they are completely different thing wall/Fence and Super Tanker Canal. There are issues of power and water that come with a canal that simple are not addressed with a fence wall.

Do you like Drinking water and eclectic?

How about boat racing?

piloteer

"@CYDdharta

That Yale study was done by an immigrant, with the expressed purpose of showing the estimated crime rates of illegal immigrants from 1990 to 2016 was overestimated. Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi is an MIT lecturer and the chief author of the study. In the words of the authors of the study, this is what they've found. "Kaplan noted that statistics such as per capita crime rate and job displacement due to undocumented immigration significantly drop in light of the different population size estimate.“What our results say is we have the same number of crimes, but we’ve spread it to twice as many people,” Fazel-Zarandi said. “This means the per capita rate is half as big.”

I have actually read the study, it was done to dispute the findings of the heritage foundation. The tax burden of illegal immigrants from 1990 to 2016 is not disputed by the study, the number of immigrants is. If the tax burden in that 26 year span is the same, but the number of immigrants is twice as many, than the tax burden of each illegal immigrant is 50% less than previously thought. I guess all I can say is stop aimlessly searching for statistics on illegal immigrants without reading the study first. You're not helping your cause!

@John_C_87

There is nothing there that convinces me that I need to concern myself with the welfare of anybody else. Thank you though for finally admitting what you and the trump supporters want to do. EVERYBODY ON THIS THREAD NEEDS TO KNOW THAT THIS PERSON WANTS TO ABANDON THE CONSTITUTION. There is nothing that anybody has shown me that convinces me that illegal immigrants are dangerous, are a tax burden, or not beneficial to the US economy. If you want to grab a shovel and start digging your trench, then by all means, go ahead. I have no interest in paying for it. 

MayCaesar

@John_C_87 ;

Federal taxation of American citizens was illegal until 1913, when (arguably) the worst president in the history of the United States of America introduced the heavily unconstitutional 16th Amendment. It is only after that anti-libertarian president fixed the Constitution up to serve the central government's ambitions that "common defense" and "general welfare" were deemed worthy and deserving of the nation-wide tax collection and funding.

If we were having this discussion a bit over a century ago, then building the wall would be the burden of those states' governments that border Mexico. Or, even more so, the burden of the president personally, who promised to "make Mexico pay for it". I do not mind, let Mexico pay for it, as promised! Or, if this does not work out, then Donald could at least fulfill his promise to eliminate the governmental debt - and the first step towards it would be to reject ridiculous money sinks that are likely to put the budget into an even worse debt pit, than Obama's healthcare reform attempt did.

They US has been doing just fine without any walls, or without immigration policies at all until a bit less than a century ago, for that matter. The federals are pushing really hard today, twisting all possible political norms of the States, in order to justify collecting heavy taxes from the population. The Republicans may have reduced the tax burden on the population as a whole, but they surely do not seem much smarter than the Democrats in spending what they have collected wisely.

CYDdharta

piloteer said:

"@CYDdharta

That Yale study was done by an immigrant, with the expressed purpose of showing the estimated crime rates of illegal immigrants from 1990 to 2016 was overestimated. Mohammad Fazel-Zarandi is an MIT lecturer and the chief author of the study. In the words of the authors of the study, this is what they've found. "Kaplan noted that statistics such as per capita crime rate and job displacement due to undocumented immigration significantly drop in light of the different population size estimate.“What our results say is we have the same number of crimes, but we’ve spread it to twice as many people,” Fazel-Zarandi said. “This means the per capita rate is half as big.”

I have actually read the study, it was done to dispute the findings of the heritage foundation. The tax burden of illegal immigrants from 1990 to 2016 is not disputed by the study, the number of immigrants is. If the tax burden in that 26 year span is the same, but the number of immigrants is twice as many, than the tax burden of each illegal immigrant is 50% less than previously thought. I guess all I can say is stop aimlessly searching for statistics on illegal immigrants without reading the study first. You're not helping your cause!

Then you must not have read the Heritage study.  Once again, since you seem unable to comprehend the point, the Heritage study took the total number of illegal households and multiplied them by the estimated the benefits (educational, community, etc.). IOW;

total number of illegal households x estimated the benefits (educational, community, etc.) = tax burden of illegal immigrants

If you understand basic arithmetic, doubling either of the initial values (total number of illegal households, or estimated the benefits) doubles the total (tax burden of illegal immigrants)

You really should have learned that in grade school.

John_C_87

@piloteer ;

No one is abandoning Constitution…..

The direct response to that observation is they are abandoning legal United State set as goal within a search for United State constitutional principle to place as a focus.

There is nothing there you need? Then we move to the eminent, do people need electric? Do people need water? I can understand how you make a choice for yourself and can live without electric to a limited point. This removing many emergency medical treatments, and convenience. It is the use of water I might question though I can also see where you feel it is not right to address water on a large scale publicly.

George_Horse

piloteer said:

@George_Horse

Yes, they should be let in. It will be no burden on taxpayers, it will help the GDP grow, and there's no valid evidence that shows illegal immigrants are more criminally dangerous than naturalized citizens. The wall WILL make federal taxes increase, it will increase our national debt, and there's no evidence that it will dramatically decrease illegal immigration.

No they should not. All we will do is bring problems into our society. The same thing happened to Europe, they let them ALL in, and in return, they received terrorist attacks. Why? Because the backgrounds of the refugees were NOT checked, so they didn't know who had terrorist affiliations and who didn't. Instead, they [Immigrants] should come in by the legal process, and if you are so willing, would you let random those unknown immigrants into your home? 

piloteer

@MayCaesar

FDR and Nixon, are definitely in the running for the worst President award. If trump can't deliver on his promises, then there will be another contestant in that race. Wilson was the scariest in my opinion though. He was a fierce promoter of eugenics and the KKK.