alternative to wall

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Said the nitwit from the nutmeg state. Please take your logic to Mexico also,you can find a way to offset a history of good decision making. California will bail you out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which one? CT currently has a pair of nitwits in the senate, and more in the house. You must specify...

[Sea Dangles]

I am sure you know a #^&#^&#^&#^& when you see one Paul. Probably an expert on #^&#^&#^&#^&s.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am sure you know a #^&#^&#^&#^& when you see one Paul. Probably an expert on #^&#^&#^&#^&s.��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good one! Really using those few brain cells now!

[PaulS]

And I feel that there's a certain element of racism in the Chant build the wall and what it means to some people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And I feel that there's a certain element of racism in the Chant build the wall and what it means to some people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course you do.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And I feel that there's a certain element of racism in the Chant build the wall and what it means to some people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please explain your prejudices that make you feel this way?

You put a wall around your property because you love the ones within it, not because you hate the ones outside it.

You and Wayne with your brown people insinuations can stick a sock in it.

What happened to empathy that the left whines about Trump not having any? Do you not care about the families of loved ones killed by criminals who are not supposed to even be in the country to begin with?

Pathetic all of it

You people can’t won’t and will not agree that a wall will help border agents do their job because you hate Trump. Well wallow in your own misery then
I’m the meantime I’ll donate to the go fund me maybe to get it done
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Please explain your prejudices that make you feel this way?

You put a wall around your property because you love the ones within it, not because you hate the ones outside it.

You and Wayne with your brown people insinuations can stick a sock in it.

What happened to empathy that the left whines about Trump not having any? Do you not care about the families of loved ones killed by criminals who are not supposed to even be in the country to begin with?


Pathetic all of it

You people can’t won’t and will not agree that a wall will help border agents do their job because you hate Trump. Well wallow in your own misery then
I’m the meantime I’ll donate to the go fund me maybe to get it done
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no this is whats Pathetic

they had both houses and couldn't get it done and guys like you were silent

Trumps has called Brown people a scourge on the country and guys like you remain silent (until Trumps called on it then you rush to defend him)

Prior to January the his party pass government spending bill 100 for
no against and says hell sign it until 2 un elected fring personality chime in and Trump changes his Mind ( and pence calls one to give him a hand job) guys like you remain silent

Whats really Pathetic is Trump waited until Dems took over the house and then went into classic blame game and all of a sudden guys like you are silent no more ....????

Again its funny to see how that works over and over and over

[Sea Dangles]

It really is not racist to keep your citizens safe. Am I racist for having a gun or locks on the door?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

If Trump succeeds in getting wall funds by declaring a national emergency, will that mean he won't have to compromise on DACA?

[PaulS]

I am a Brown person.



I am also Spartacus.




I never said putting up a wall wouldn't help the agents do their job. So would putting up a row of roses with sharp thorns but there may be cheaper and more effective ways than just putting up a wall across the whole border. A wall won't help stop the drugs coming through the current border crossings.

[Slipknot]

The 2 years of it not getting done he also could not get McConnel to get the conceal carry reciprocity bill voted on by the senate. I was not silent about that either. He did however accomplish many things to better our country and I am grateful for that. The border security is now the flavor of the month and both sides get worked up about it.
Yep it is a blame game now apparently.
I never rushed to defend him from any twisted spin the left has claimed he said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

I guess Trump is considering taking money earmarked for disaster relief to build his wall, I’m sure we are all in agreement that money is better spend there?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I guess Trump is considering taking money earmarked for disaster relief to build his wall, I’m sure we are all in agreement that money is better spend there?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is disaster relief defined as impeaching the mother#^&#^&#^&#^&er?? 👍👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Why the wall doesn't work
Trump Just Doesn’t Understand the Border: Here Are the Facts
By David Bier
This article appeared in the New York Daily News on January 8, 2019.
President Trump took to television on Tuesday to make his case that the lack of a border wall has caused a “crisis.” Drugs, terrorism, crime and the illegal immigration of children all featured prominently as supposed justifications for spending billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars on the project. Yet upon close examination, the President’s justifications fall flat. The border has problems, but the President doesn’t understand them, and some of them he has caused himself.

The President cited stopping drug smuggling as a primary goal of his border barrier. Far from a crisis, however, the value of drug seizures by the average Border Patrol agent actually declined 70% since 2013. That’s because marijuana is the primary drug smuggled between ports of entry, where a border wall would go, and marijuana has been legalized in so many states that demand is being filled domestically.

While Trump acted as if the absence of a border wall were the primary cause of the opioid crisis, the average inspector at ports of entry in 2018 seized eight times more cocaine, 17 times more fentanyl, 23 times more methamphetamine and 36 times more heroin than the average Border Patrol agent seized at the physical border in early 2018. The hard drugs that Trump claims to care about aren’t coming where Trump thinks they are.


As importantly, building hundreds of miles of border fence from 2005 to 2009 did nothing to deter smuggling between ports of entry anyway. The average Border Patrol agent was seizing the same quantity of marijuana after the current fences went up as before. When marijuana was legalized in several states starting in 2014, marijuana seizures suddenly dropped 78% — legalization, not the wall, stopped the narcotraffickers.

The President could not help but raise the specter of terrorists crossing illegally. The fact is that a foreign terrorist has not carried out a single terrorist attack in more than four decades after crossing the border illegally. Trump officials have cited a number of “special interest aliens” whom Border Patrol apprehended, but those aren’t terrorists - they are just people who come from “countries of interest.” They could be a family fleeing terrorists, like the Syrian Christians who showed up at the border in 2015.

It would not be a “security crisis” without numerous “criminals and gangs.” Yet Border Patrol figures show that the agency arrested less than 1,000 border crossers who had convictions for violent crimes. That’s just 0.2% of total apprehensions. A majority of the “criminals” in 2018 were people convicted of, not surprisingly, crossing illegally. Trump claimed thousands of suspected gang members were caught crossing illegally, but again, the real number in 2018 was just 728.

The fact is that the vast majority of immigrants crossing the borders of the United States legally or otherwise are simply peaceful people seeking the American dream. That’s why, based on figures from the Census Bureau, immigrants — legal and illegal - are half as likely as natural-born Americans to be behind bars in America.

Trump struck a compassionate tone when he spoke about children who make the dangerous journey to this country. But his policies — and the current border fence — have only hurt them. As Border Patrol and the border fences pushed more and more immigrants to cross in remote areas of the border — in deserts, mountains and rivers — the journeys grew more perilous and more people died.

In 1998, Border Patrol found one dead migrant for every 5,767 apprehensions, but after building the fences and doubling its force, it found one dead migrant for every 1,034 apprehensions in 2017. That’s a sign that the journey is now about 5 times more dangerous. In addition, the remoteness of the locations where they were apprehended contributed to the deaths of both children who died in Border Patrol custody in recent weeks, as it was more difficult for them to get help.

Trump is making matters worse. His administration has institutionalized a practice of capping the number of people who can apply for asylum at legal ports of entry. This forces them to either live homeless and starving in dangerous cities in Mexico for months, or enter illegally. This choice is what is driving women and children into the hands of smugglers and leading them to cross illegally.

The administration says it doesn’t have the resources to process families at ports, but somehow Border Patrol has the resources to process five times as many families that it apprehends between ports. At a minimum, the port inspectors could turn the families over to Border Patrol, maintaining a safe and orderly flow.

The problem is that the Trump administration doesn’t want any flow, even a legal one. As Trump has said, “I don’t want them in our country.” But that’s not a solution. Trump’s policies have created a real problem, but his border wall is not the fix the system needs. America needs to overhaul its outdated immigration system.

David Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institue.

[Pete F.]

This article appeared on the Washington Examiner on May 15, 2018.
The Trump administration is in the process of writing new regulations to guarantee that certain immigrants won’t consume too many welfare or entitlement benefits. The welfare state is certainly a problem, but it’s a home-grown one, not an imported one. Welfare’s benefits are too large and too many people receive them. But the Trump administration should not blame this problem on immigrants.

In fact, immigrants use fewer welfare and entitlement benefits in than native-born Americans.

These were the results of a new study we produced for the Cato Institute. We examined data from 2016 on programs for the poor, such as Medicaid and food stamps, and also the entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare. The latter two are the largest portion of the welfare state and twice as large as all welfare programs for the poor combined. We found that immigrants use 39 percent fewer welfare and entitlements benefits per person than native-born Americans. Immigrants are less likely to use the individual programs in most cases and, when they do, the benefits they receive tend to be smaller.


Social Security retirement benefits provide a good example. Based on the data, adult immigrants are 47 percent less likely to receive Social Security benefits than native-born American adults. Furthermore, the average amount they receive in benefits is about $1,427 below that of natives in 2016. The net effect is that immigrants individually consumed 48 percent fewer Social Security retirement benefits than natives.

Supplemental Security Income provides another example. Lower immigrant use rates and benefits mean that the average adult immigrant consumes about 22 percent less in SSI benefits than the average native-born American adult.

Welfare and entitlement programs are generally intended to aid the poor and support the elderly, but only some Americans and immigrants fall into those categories. In another section of my study, we compare poor and elderly immigrants who meet the poverty and age requirements for those programs with native-born Americans who are also eligible. In this section, immigrants consume 27 percent fewer benefits than native-born Americans.

One reason why immigrants use fewer benefits is because they are often not eligible for them. Legal immigrants cannot get welfare for their first five years of residency, with few exceptions, mostly at the state level. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare except for rare circumstances like emergency Medicaid.

Immigrants are drawn to America’s labor markets, not to welfare benefits. The number of illegal immigrants apprehended on the Southwest border, a good proxy measurement for the number who want to come here, is down by 82 percent in 2017 compared to 2000. During that time, Congress has increased the number of welfare programs available for new immigrants.

If they were coming for welfare, there would be more illegal immigrants entering the country than ever. But there aren’t. Murder, the chaotic drug war in Central America, and a recovering economy here, combined with a faltering one there, is the main driver of asylum seekers and some illegal immigrants coming from that part of the world.

The fact that immigrants are in fact less likely to receive welfare benefits should dampen the fears of conservatives and libertarians who would support more legal immigration if it weren’t for welfare and entitlement programs.

Still, Congress needs to address the high cost of welfare and entitlement programs. The best option would be to severely cut the size and accessibility to the welfare and entitlement state for everybody here — immigrants and natives. The benefits are unaffordable and push millions of people out of the labor market.

Congress should pass a simple law that makes all people ineligible to receive welfare and entitlement programs until they become U.S. citizens. Building expensive walls around the country, cutting legal immigration, or putting more faith in government technology to stop illegal immigration are fool’s errands. Reducing immigrant access to welfare and cutting the size of benefits are, by contrast, achievable and popular policies.

The good news is that even without a higher wall around the welfare state, immigrants are a welfare bargain compared to native-born Americans.

Alex Nowrasteh is a senior immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Robert Orr is a research assistant working on welfare policy at the Cato Institute.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This article appeared on the Washington Examiner on May 15, 2018.
The Trump administration is in the process of writing new regulations to guarantee that certain immigrants won’t consume too many welfare or entitlement benefits. The welfare state is certainly a problem, but it’s a home-grown one, not an imported one. Welfare’s benefits are too large and too many people receive them. But the Trump administration should not blame this problem on immigrants.

I don't recall the Trump administration blaming immigrants for our welfare benefits being too large.

In fact, immigrants use fewer welfare and entitlement benefits in than native-born Americans.

Congress should pass a simple law that makes all people ineligible to receive welfare and entitlement programs until they become U.S. citizens.

But then they too will become the same welfare guzzlers that native born Americans are. And as Jim pointed out, their children, that they produce at much higher rates than native born Americans will be native born so the number of welfare guzzlers will eventually go up dramatically at higher rates thanks to the immigrants.

Building expensive walls around the country, cutting legal immigration, or putting more faith in government technology to stop illegal immigration are fool’s errands. Reducing immigrant access to welfare and cutting the size of benefits are, by contrast, achievable and popular policies.

So "comprehensive immigration reform" is a fool's errand. Good to know. Oh, and cutting the size of benefits, I don't think you can get past the Dems on that without a huge fight--probably not an achievable or popular policy.

The good news is that even without a higher wall around the welfare state, immigrants are a welfare bargain compared to native-born Americans.

Actually, the Dems have a decent plan about that "good news". Put everybody on free birth control, abortion, promote genders which won't produce children, and so decrease the number of native-born Americans and allow massive immigration, legal or not, to replace the disappearing Americans. Voila! . . . the cost of the welfare state will go down because immigrants use welfare less at a less costly rate. Oh, but . . . darn. They produce children at a higher rate so, in spite of getting rid of most of the "native born," the population will grow dramatically with new "native borns."

Sounds rather hopeless.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, the Dems have a decent plan about that "good news". Put everybody on free birth control, abortion, promote genders which won't produce children, and so decrease the number of native-born Americans and allow massive immigration, legal or not, to replace the disappearing Americans. Voila! . . . the cost of the welfare state will go down because immigrants use welfare less at a less costly rate. Oh, but . . . darn. They produce children at a higher rate so, in spite of getting rid of most of the "native born," the population will grow dramatically with new "native borns."

Sounds rather hopeless.

You actually think LGBTQ people don't have or raise children, that abortion is a significant population limiter, that birth control is the reason people choose not to have children.
You likely don't think that parental leave, child care, access to affordable healthcare, student loans are things that limit people's choices about having children. Just think in those evil socialized countries typical childbirth costs are half and less than the US.

Just what scares you about new "native borns", what generation American are you, that entitles you to close the door?

[Pete F.]

A paragraph from Jonah Goldberg's book Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy
“I believe that, conceptually, we have reached the end of history. We are at the summit, and at this altitude [political] left and right lose most of their meaning. Because when you are at the top of the mountain, any direction you turn — be it left toward socialism or right toward nationalism … the result is the same: You must go down, back whence you came.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A paragraph from Jonah Goldberg's book Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy
“I believe that, conceptually, we have reached the end of history. We are at the summit, and at this altitude [political] left and right lose most of their meaning. Because when you are at the top of the mountain, any direction you turn — be it left toward socialism or right toward nationalism … the result is the same: You must go down, back whence you came.”

Jonah Goldberg the con.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jonah Goldberg the con.

Odd, I would have thought you would be bowing at his feet after his other book:Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change and The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Odd, I would have thought you would be bowing at his feet after his other book:Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change and The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas

You don’t get it, everything is a con, nothing is real. Now while you’re confused I’m robbing your house.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Odd, I would have thought you would be bowing at his feet after his other book:Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change and The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas

I've grown to like throwing the word "con" around after seeing how it is being done on this forum. It's kinda fun. And eliminates the need for lengthy rational deliberation. Jonah Goldberg can be a con artist at times. Just like you.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jonah Goldberg the con.

I see why you don't like him, he's written what I have been saying
He's not one of The People of Wall-mart:

"When looking at what advances this administration’s agenda or is good for the Republican Party, however, “his base loves it” doesn’t score any points.

Worse, it’s self-fulfilling prophecy. As he sheds the mostly suburban voters who gave him his margin of victory in 2016, of course he clings more tightly to those who celebrate the behaviors that are bleeding the GOP of support. They’re the only ones left. Proclaiming that “his base loves it” may be an explanation, but it’s no excuse. And it misses the point if you care about the GOP’s long-term viability or even Trump’s re-election prospects. He’s going to need more voters than his amen chorus.

Last month’s midterms showed what a national election looks like when only Trump enablers feel highly motivated to vote Republican. The GOP lost Orange County, Calif., the ancestral home of the conservative movement. New England now has more GOP governors than Republican members of Congress. In Iowa, the GOP lost all of its House races save for uber-Trumpy Steve King’s. A party in which only bigoted goons like King can thrive by fueling white resentment is destined for the dustbin of history.

The irony here is that Trump’s base will forgive him for nearly anything. He easily could have used the wall as leverage to gain Democratic support for mandating that all employers use E-Verify to confirm a prospective employee has legal immigration status. This is what serious immigration hawks have implored him to do — and he’d get credit for being the great deal-maker he claims to be.

But the larger irony is that his base-service has led him to this very predicament: shutdown or back down.

Most presidents try to expand their coalition while holding onto their base. Trump has shrunk his coalition and laid the foundation for future shrinkage by forcing his party to endorse this behavior. Trump will be gone soon enough, but at this rate the party of Trump will be a rump party."

[Pete F.]

And just as true as the anecdotal evidence presented about immigrant killers is this
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/...ne-284/547421/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You actually think LGBTQ people don't have or raise children,

I put some serious pooh-pooh on your article and all you can respond to is my sarcastic hyperbolic summation?

The LGBTQ community as a whole will actually be able to "have" (create through sexual union) children at a lesser rate than "cisgenders" because the largest component of LGBTQ is the LG who now don't have to get into pretend marriages with a cisgender. Same sex folks can't biologically produce babies by having sex with each other. The other letters will have a more difficult time finding the right opposite letter than their cis cousins. The Q portion is probably too confused to know what they're supposed to do.

And raising children that a union did not produce does not add to population numbers.


that abortion is a significant population limiter,

Yes, abortion and birth control are both "a significant population limiter." One of their main purposes is specifically to reduce the number of children that will have to be raised.


that birth control is the reason people choose not to have children.

It's not the reason, it's the method.

You likely don't think that parental leave, child care, access to affordable healthcare, student loans are things that limit people's choices about having children. Just think in those evil socialized countries typical childbirth costs are half and less than the US.

The "native born" of those socialized countries in Europe where childbirth costs are half and less than here have lower birth rates than our "native born." Their birth rate is well below replacement numbers. lowering costs does not motivate them to have more children than we do here with our higher costs.

But the massive number of immigrants they've invited in the past decade have a much higher birth rate which demographers have calculated will make the children of those immigrants the majority population in a couple of generations.


Just what scares you about new "native borns", what generation American are you, that entitles you to close the door?

Why do you frame it as "scares"? Projecting?

I point out the incoherence of your posted article and that is supposed to mean that I am scared and believe that I'm entitled to close the door? Why are you being so defensive and imputing strange non sequitur characterizations of me?

I'm trying to have a rational discussion. But I am increasingly finding that it doesn't net a similar response.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Why do you frame it as "scares"? Projecting?

I point out the incoherence of your posted article and that is supposed to mean that I am scared and believe that I'm entitled to close the door? Why are you being so defensive and imputing strange non sequitur characterizations of me?

I'm trying to have a rational discussion. But I am increasingly finding that it doesn't net a similar response.

Any female of childbearing age can become pregnant, all she has to do is have operable female genitals.
So how do LGBTQ people affect birthrates, are you proposing that they be "converted" so that they can produce children correctly in your mind or that so many females have sex changes or whatever the politically correct terminology is?
Do you think people should be required to marry and have children, or just be required to have children, or just not be allowed to use birth control so they suffer the consequences of their behavior? Just how do you propose that birth rates increase?

Why do you see this as a problem:
But the massive number of immigrants they've invited in the past decade have a much higher birth rate which demographers have calculated will make the children of those immigrants the majority population in a couple of generations.

That is why I posed this question below, perhaps I misunderstood your motivation for that statement and my assumption that you were implying that it is what will also happen here. Though I would also say that the analysis I've seen of second generation immigrants is that their behavior closely mirrors that of the larger society they live in, so I wouldn't count on them keeping the same high birthrates as their parents.
Just what scares you about new "native borns", what generation American are you, that entitles you to close the door?

[detbuch]

Illegal is illegal regardless of various stats that supposedly show how the illegality should not be so important compared to the reputed benefits. So, in the war of links, there's this rebuttal to all the links supposedly showing that illegal immigrants are a net plus economically:

http://www.fairus.org/issue/publicat...ates-taxpayers

Who knows what to believe. Except that illegal is illegal.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Illegal is illegal regardless of various stats that supposedly show how the illegality should not be so important compared to the reputed benefits. So, in the war of links, there's this rebuttal to all the links supposedly showing that illegal immigrants are a net plus economically:

http://www.fairus.org/issue/publicat...ates-taxpayers

Who knows what to believe. Except that illegal is illegal.

Glad you picked a neutral source. I’m kind of surprised you didn’t quote Steve King.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-f...n-reform-fair/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Glad you picked a neutral source. I’m kind of surprised you didn’t quote Steve King.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-f...n-reform-fair/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know anything about FAIR. I picked the first one on the google list. Your "fact check" source is questionable. Using the Southern Poverty Law Center as source is a negative for me. My experience with its analyses showed it to be racist, very biased, and superficial. Cato often shows its bias as well, though not as bad as the SPLC.

And then calling Breitbart, Gatestone Institute, and Judicial Watch "far right," who all have done some excellent work, while using such a leftist and biased organization as Southern Poverty Law Center as a source is idiotic.

A "fact check" by a questionable "checker" doesn't tell me anything. Actually, and solidly refuting the numbers in my link would be the better way.

And why would I quote Steve King?

[Pete F.]

FAIR uses every skewed number.
A few quotes from John Tanton, the founder of FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA
"Do we leave it to individuals to decide that they are the intelligent ones who should have more kids? And more troublesome, what about the less intelligent, who logically should have less? Who is going to break the bad news [to less intelligent individuals], and how will it be implemented?"

"I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."

"whether the minorities who are going to inherit California (85% of the lower-grade school children are now 'minorities' -- demography is destiny) can run an advanced society?

But illegal immigration keeps dropping anyways so it must be an emergency
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2018/11/2...l-in-a-decade/