Forbes: Falling Illegal Immigration Numbers Confirm No Border Crisis

[ill]

I obviously don't have a clue how much it would cost, but the initial internal estimates claimed $25 billion, and others have claimed up to $70 billion.

But there is no "end cost", as it would require constant upkeep and maintenance. You'll notice that we're already spending billions to repair and replace the parts of the wall/fence that are already up. That would never end. And the longer that coyotes and drug runners and the rest had to work on defeating the wall, the more our costs for defending would continue to rise regardless of whether the wall was there or not.


Now, on the other hand think about this. Guatemala's entire government's budget is only $9 billion/year. Nicaragua is only $4 billion/year. Honduras? $5 billion. For a fraction of the cost of the wall, we could help them address some of the problems that OUR GOVERNMENT caused in those countries so you wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people trying to flee their homeland anymore. Then you would solve a large part of the border crossing issue AND the gang issue and a small part of the drug issue, by addressing the root cause instead of a giant bandaid. And it wouldn't be the environmental disaster or ugly xenophobic image of the wall either.

Then in the USA you could address the war on drugs in a productive way that at the least would stop a considerable amount of the drug flow (decriminalization) and at best would reduce the number of addicts and the power of crime networks and gangs while improving communities. That probably wouldn't even cost anything, it would be a net gain because of all the savings due to lower prison population and ability to redirect police resources.

How are you gonna control military governments in Central America? These guys aren’t giving up their power and control for a few billion, imo.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Entire country's infrastructure: Failing

CACs: LeT'S bUiLD a wALL!!!!

 

[kevin arnold]

I just wanted to punch this idiot in the face so bad this morning

 

[Maschine_Man]

Ask the conservative businessmen who hire them to work their fields, factories, warehouses, restaurants, etc.


Your parents immigrated here. And I don't trust their paperwork. Very possibly fraudulent. Let's get ICE on the case. In the meantime, you need to be detained, you alien. Who knows what diseases or drugs you've brought in here. This is my house, not yours, foreigner.

fukk anyone, that hires illegals to get around paying a fair wage and giving benefits to workers.

And fukk anyone that supports them or finds ways for them to get away with it.

I personally think that the government should be going after every illegal employer and have them suffer the consequences

 

[Maschine_Man]

Negged.

Of course you would neg and not add anything to the argument.

You have no logical retort to this argument.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

I personally think that the government should be going after every illegal employer and have them suffer the consequences

The Republicans don't.

 

[ill]

The Republicans don't.

Yeah, those California Democrats surely crack down on all the illegal employers in their agriculture industries

 

[Maschine_Man]

The Republicans don't.

I’m not a republican

 

[Professor Emeritus]

How are you gonna control military governments in Central America? These guys aren’t giving up their power and control for a few billion, imo.

They're generally not military governments and the USA is already dealing in aid to all of those countries, the problem being that they are currently engaged in the kind of aid (primarily military/security) that makes the problems WORSE, not better.

Guatemala is a democracy (though a somewhat unstable one). We gave them $250 million in aid last year, but the biggest chunk of that was in counternarcotics programs that probably only make things worse. If we bumped that up to half a billion, cut out the narcotics programs, and focused on agricultural/education assistance, we could make a big difference there. In fact, the BIGGEST difference would be if we made say a one-time $1 billion payment conditional on land reform. Poor people in Guatemala just don't have enough land to make a living on, land seizures by wealthy agribusiness is the reason why. Those people have the ear of government because they have the money, but it would be easy for the USA to shift that ear, especially if they dropped their own corporate involvement in the problem.

El Salvador is also a democracy, though their government is somewhat weak and corrupt and MS-13 moves freely. The justice system is particularly bad, murders are rarely solved. We gave them about $120 million in aid in 2017, bump that up to $300 million focused on economic improvements and modernization of the justice system, dependent on an anti-corruption program. Again, while many politicians are corrupt, money talks to them, and the USA has more money to throw around the country than anyone there has. We did a lot to prop up El Savador's worst governments and create this problem, we can work to help them build a better one instead.

We gave Honduras about $180 million in aid in 2017, mostly to prop up governance. Honduras is ruled by an unelected leader propped up by the legislature after a 2010 coup. $20 million of our aid is directly to the military that initiated the coup. If we dropped all military/security assistance, but offered to triple our give to $500 million/year dependent on free elections, there's a good chance that the coalition allowing the coup would crumble. It wasn't a hard coup, they rely on the support of the legislature, and even they can recognize that if they fell back to hold only military power in a more economically advanced democratic state, they're cutting their losses just fine. Even if that pipe dream doesn't happen, the USA can at least drop the military aid and focus solely on agricultural/education/humanitarian aid.


We're already dumping money in all these countries, we're just doing it in a way that serves some corporate interests and extends the War on Drugs. If we instead focused on things that directly improve the lives of the people there, we'd have enough money to shift governments significantly in the direction we would want (as we already do).

And lets pretend a worst-case scenario, that we can't do anything in any of those three countries. Then instead, offer Mexico $500 million a year in economic and development aid in southernmost Mexico in exchange for helping Central American refugees to resettle there. Mexico has already been asking for that for some time, although at much lower levels. We currently are throwing about $300 million a year to Mexico but it's all drug war shyt. People don't like to go far from home if they can help it, if we helped make southern Mexico a more viable legal destination for refugees, significantly fewer of them would push all the way up to the USA only to risk deportation and re-deportation.

 

[Black Panther]

Of course you would neg and not add anything to the argument.

You have no logical retort to this argument.

You're not worth my time.

I like being efficient, so I prefer to neg you now and skip the dumb-ass back-and-forth. :bppullup:

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Yeah, those California Democrats surely crack down on all the illegal employers in their agriculture industries

Are the businessmen in California all Democrats?

And how many state legislatures are controlled by Republicans?

Let's face it: the business wing of the government wants slave labor.

That's why I say citizenship for all. A new emancipation proclamation. Full rights for everyone working here.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I obviously don't have a clue how much it would cost, but the initial internal estimates claimed $25 billion, and others have claimed up to $70 billion.

But there is no "end cost", as it would require constant upkeep and maintenance. You'll notice that we're already spending billions to repair and replace the parts of the wall/fence that are already up. That would never end. And the longer that coyotes and drug runners and the rest had to work on defeating the wall, the more our costs for defending would continue to rise regardless of whether the wall was there or not.


Now, on the other hand think about this. Guatemala's entire government's budget is only $9 billion/year. Nicaragua is only $4 billion/year. Honduras? $5 billion. For a fraction of the cost of the wall, we could help them address some of the problems that OUR GOVERNMENT caused in those countries so you wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people trying to flee their homeland anymore. Then you would solve a large part of the border crossing issue AND the gang issue and a small part of the drug issue, by addressing the root cause instead of a giant bandaid. And it wouldn't be the environmental disaster or ugly xenophobic image of the wall either.

Then in the USA you could address the war on drugs in a productive way that at the least would stop a considerable amount of the drug flow (decriminalization) and at best would reduce the number of addicts and the power of crime networks and gangs while improving communities. That probably wouldn't even cost anything, it would be a net gain because of all the savings due to lower prison population and ability to redirect police resources.

There’s no amount of money that would filter down to fix this.

A wall is stupid but they’re going to keep coming like they have for the past 40 years.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I love how none of you have the fortitude to talk about how these effects have ruined black labor.

My stance on illegals is purely directed by that simple statistic that even most black elected officials want to avoid.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

I love how none of you have the fortitude to talk about how these effects have ruined black labor.

My stance on illegals is purely directed by that simple statistic that even most black elected officials want to avoid.

Here he goes again with the TLR Hotep shytpost positions again

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Here he goes again with the TLR Hotep shytpost positions again

The black construction unions in Los Angeles are “hoteps” now?