United States Government Shuts Down Over Petty Squabbling

[EnglishALT]

I would like to explain why the wall is such an absurd and frivolous endeavor.

But it would take too long, so I'll post this to explain it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdUIXvwuwto

So are we going to just ignore the fact that places that have border walls see a massive drop in illegal immigration?

 

[Nah]

So are we going to just ignore the fact that places that have border walls see a massive drop in illegal immigration?

Such as?

 

[gimmepie]

So are we going to just ignore the fact that places that have border walls see a massive drop in illegal immigration?

Sources please.

 

[EnglishALT]

Sources please.

Such as?

We built new infrastructure along the border east and west of the San Luis Arizona Port of Entry in 2006. The existing fence was quickly lengthened, and we added second and third layers to that fencing in urban areas. Lighting, roads and increased surveillance were added to aid agents patrolling the border.

Although there is still work to do, the border in Yuma sector today is more secure because of this investment. Even under lax enforcement standards, apprehensions in fiscal year 2016 were roughly a 10th of what they were in FY 2005 — and are on track to be even lower this year. Crime has significantly decreased in the Yuma area, and smugglers now look for other less difficult areas of the border to cross — often areas without fencing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/

 

[gimmepie]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ector-proves-it-elaine-duke-column/586853001/

Relevant side question before I put a counter-argument together: Is the illegal immigration itself counted in the crime statistics?

 

[EnglishALT]

Relevant side question before I put a counter-argument together: Is the illegal immigration itself counted in the crime statistics?

The article does not state for certain however I would guess it is combined with drug trafficking as those are the two crimes cited.

 

[Nah]

Even in the scenario that a border wall (which, not wanting a border wall and wanting border security are not mutually exclusive) causes a big drop in illegal immigration, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best option. Better than stopping people from immigrating illegally is to not give them reason to immigrate illegally in the first place.

And beyond that, the wall is to some people a symbol of racism/xenophobia.

 

[EnglishALT]

Even in the scenario that a border wall (which, not wanting a border wall and wanting border security are not mutually exclusive) causes a big drop in illegal immigration, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best option. Better than stopping people from immigrating illegally is to not give them reason to immigrate illegally in the first place.

And beyond that, the wall is to some people a symbol of racism/xenophobia.

People can have that opinion however that does not make the wall any less effective, there are ways to decrease illegal immigration with things such as mandatory e-verify, repealing birth right citizenship, etc, however the quicker and easier way would just be a wall. Which as the article mentions also stops drug trafficking as well.

 

[gimmepie]

Okay, well between 2007 and 2010 the fencing along the US/Mexico border increased by roughly 548 miles to cover. Despite this huge increase in the length of fencing across the border there was only an overall drop in the number of Mexican born workers of about 0.6 percent. The majority of Mexican-born migrants still opted to immigrate to the United States even though the expansion of the barriers to entry made doing so more difficult.

The drop to crime, especially violent crime, that can be expected from the border wall is also quite negligible. Studies repeatedly have found that immigrants both legal and illegal are much less likely to commit crimes than their US-born counterparts. When it comes to homicide, for example, illegal immigrants are 16% less likely to be convicted despite people of colour having a generally higher conviction rate than white Americans accused of the same crimes.

Futhermore, US Border Patrol data heavily suggests that immigration into the US has reached anything even resembling a crisis point.

So, there is little to be gained from building even more fencing. Meanwhile, there is a lot to be lost for the average American. The border wall will increase taxes on already struggling people by quite a large margin, despite providing no economic positives for the country and having a generally negative impact economically over all. College educated Americans will actually see their average income fall while uneducated workers might if they're lucky see a 40c increase to their earnings. This is not even taking into account the immediate large sum of money that has to come out of the treasury to fund construction.

Meanwhile, other types of action would yield much more positive results. For example, reducing trade costs between Mexico and the US would not only reduce immigration but would also provide an economic plus to both countries with workers in the US likely seeing a noteworthy rise in their income while workers in Mexico would have less of an economic push towards immigrating to the US to begin with.

Streamlining the US immigration process would also greatly reduce the number of illegal immigrants into the US as more immigrants would be able to access the country quickly via legal means rendering illegal immigration less necessary. Both of these methods would also have the advantage of not further damaging the United States' international reputation.

https://www.futurity.org/border-wall-united-states-mexico-1915802/
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-economic-impact-border-wall-high.html
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work
http://time.com/5497260/donald-trump-border-wall-fact-check/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/25/us-illegal-border-crossings-analysis-trump-migrants

 

[EnglishALT]

Okay, well between 2007 and 2010 the fencing along the US/Mexico border increased by roughly 548 miles to cover. Despite this huge increase in the length of fencing across the border there was only an overall drop in the number of Mexican born workers of about 0.6 percent. The majority of Mexican-born migrants still opted to immigrate to the United States even though the expansion of the barriers to entry made doing so more difficult.

Two problems here, first it does not address the decrease in areas where the border fence was placed, instead referring to the entire border. There is no doubt if you only put barriers up in some places while leaving vast swaths of land open, it will just funnel the people into the open areas. As the argument is about the effectiveness of walls the comparison needs to be made in areas that did not have walls and then received them as seen in Yuma, to get a better understanding on what a full wall barrier would accomplish.

Second and this is just a nitpick, it only addresses 'Mexican born' workers, when illegal immigrants are increasing from other Central American countries.

"The number of unauthorized immigrants has grown since 2007 only from one birth region: Central America, from 1.5 million that year to nearly 1.9 million in 2016. This growth was fueled mainly by immigrants from the Northern Triangle nations of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

The drop to crime, especially violent crime, that can be expected from the border wall is also quite negligible. Studies repeatedly have found that immigrants both legal and illegal are much less likely to commit crimes than their US-born counterparts. When it comes to homicide, for example, illegal immigrants are 16% less likely to be convicted despite people of colour having a generally higher conviction rate than white Americans accused of the same crimes.

This also is some what correct some what in correct, it is hard to determine what percentage of illegals commit crimes since some states like California do not post immigration status, when it comes to crimes. However certain various studies have stated that illegals make up a significant number of the prison population and commit more crime than the average citizen.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992
https://fairus.org/issue/illegal-im...aliens-commit-crime-much-higher-rate-citizens

So, there is little to be gained from building even more fencing. Meanwhile, there is a lot to be lost for the average American. The border wall will increase taxes on already struggling people by quite a large margin, despite providing no economic positives for the country and having a generally negative impact economically over all. College educated Americans will actually see their average income fall while uneducated workers might if they're lucky see a 40c increase to their earnings. This is not even taking into account the immediate large sum of money that has to come out of the treasury to fund construction.

There is no guarantee that wall money would come from taxing the "average American", some have suggested it can come from sources like drug busts or on remittance to other countries.

 

[Nah]

People can have that opinion however that does not make the wall any less effective, there are ways to decrease illegal immigration with things such as mandatory e-verify, repealing birth right citizenship, etc, however the quicker and easier way would just be a wall. Which as the article mentions also stops drug trafficking as well.

It being quick and easy doesn't really address what I said though.

"The number of unauthorized immigrants has grown since 2007 only from one birth region: Central America, from 1.5 million that year to nearly 1.9 million in 2016. This growth was fueled mainly by immigrants from the Northern Triangle nations of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

The Pew link also notes that overall illegal immigration has been slowly declining over the past decade or so. The number of people coming here from Central American countries illegally has gone up as of late yes, but it's gone down or held steady in most other regions other than Asia. And the upswing in Central American and Asian illegal immigrants has supposedly not been as much as the decline in other areas.

You can see it better here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...opulation-fell-in-2015-below-recession-level/

 

[EnglishALT]

It being quick and easy doesn't really address what I said though.

The problem is that other ways are also fraught with problems. Passing a constitutional amendment to stop birth right citizenship is practically impossible in terms of finding the needed votes, and mandatory e-verify does not guarantee employers will just keep their illegal workers off the books. Honestly I would love an all of the above approach, with doing a wall, and everything else to stop illegal immigration.

The Pew link also notes that overall illegal immigration has been slowly declining over the past decade or so. The number of people coming here from Central American countries illegally has gone up as of late yes, but it's gone down or held steady in most other regions other than Asia. And the upswing in Central American and Asian illegal immigrants has supposedly not been as much as the decline in other areas.

You can see it better here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...opulation-fell-in-2015-below-recession-level/

Yeah, my problem was just limiting it to Mexican born citizens, honestly a border wall would stop anyone crossing the southern border, and not just those born in Mexico.

 

[VisionofMilotic]

So it is safe to say that we will be spared a second shut down. A bipartisan veto-proof govt bill will pass without funding for a wall. Trump ended up with even less money for fencing, technology and border security than the democrats were willing to give him prior to the shutdown. Not only that, there is language in this legislation that specifically prohibits construction of a wall in key areas. This has blown up in Trump's face. He dragged the American people around without pay for most of the winter all for nothing.

Now it has come to a last ditch effort of declaring a national emergency to turn the government upside down like a piggy bank and shake out that money. Try it. We'll see you in court Donald.

A project like this would take years to build even if it had the support of congress and the country. Trump is going to have to scale a wall of his own, not made of steel and concrete, but more resistance from congress, challenges through every court and political consequences. You won't be picking up a shovel anytime soon.

We have the national emergencies act because in a moment of crisis there may be no time for a vote from congress. That was what Lincoln did during the civil war when congress was out of session, and he retroactively sought and received the approval of congress. What Trump is doing is something totally different. He has a clear answer from congress, NO. Even after being taken hostage in a government shutdown congress adamantly said NO, WE DO NOT APPROVE THIS. Article 1 of the constitution says, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law." If Trump really tries to reach inside and seize the money anyway then it will be unconstitutional.

To openly circumvent the congress by saying it is a state of emergency is playing with fire. What is an emergency? Today conservatives can argue it is illegal immigration to serve their agenda. Tomorrow liberals can say it is gun violence or climate change to serve ourselves. This is a pandora's box that Trump is going to struggle to pry open, even with a conservative court. This can be thrown right back in Trump's face, just as it was for President Truman when he tried to take control of the steel industry. It is not a simple matter, nor should it be.

 

[LDSman]

To openly circumvent the congress by saying it is a state of emergency is playing with fire. What is an emergency? Today conservatives can argue it is illegal immigration to serve their agenda. Tomorrow liberals can say it is gun violence or climate change to serve ourselves. This is a pandora's box that Trump is going to struggle to pry open, even with a conservative court. This can be thrown right back in Trump's face, just as it was for President Truman when he tried to take control of the steel industry. It is not a simple matter, nor should it be.

Maintaining national security is part of the pres's job. It'll be interesting to see what the courts say.

Pelosi has already made that threat. You want a fight? Declare a national emergency and then proceed to violate the constitution.

 

[Nah]

gimme a sec, gonna make a separate thread for the national emergency bit

edit: here we go: https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?p=9979971#post9979971

 

[VisionofMilotic]

Maintaining national security is part of the pres's job. It'll be interesting to see what the courts say.

Trump does not know when to shut up. His own words are deflating what shaky arguement he has that he perceives a state of emergency as commander-in-chief.

"On the wall they skimped. So I think I was sucessful in that sense, but I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period time, I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster." -Trump

 

[Maedar]

Trump does not know when to shut up. His own words are deflating what shaky arguement he has that he perceives a state of emergency as commander-in-chief.

"On the wall they skimped. So I think I was sucessful in that sense, but I want to do it faster. I could do the wall over a longer period time, I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster." -Trump

He also admitted in one speech that all you'd need to bypass it is a ladder and a rope.

You know, rope? Possibly the third tool invented by primitive man?