The debate "Should The president build the wall" was started by
August 24, 2019, 4:30 pm.
74 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 124 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
whackamole1 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 6 arguments, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, historybuff posted 12 arguments, MrShine posted 9 arguments, marky posted 2 arguments, Dij748 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
itzmeboi, Manuel, whackamole1, HusamAli, Ministerofdebate, Dreezy, thabiso, Delta_Force01, jrardin12, Liam and 64 visitors agree.
Allirix, TheExistentialist, historybuff, YEET, Zsheaffer, fireball4thewin, MissFit, MrShine, CelestialXXXX, Legion, Aiyaz, codyray16, Batman, marky, Persephone, emzy101, Shrivali_16, K1VK2DF, MightyJackalope, StrangeTime, LitleTortilaBoy, Dij748, bb21, diecinueve, rusianjudes and 99 visitors disagree.
Still, they are still trying to build the wall. So again, we will have to wait and see.
Actually, we have only replaced dilapidated parts of the old border. We haven't actually began building a wall. There is an organization acting independently of the government to do so, but the courts are telling them to stop.
as we speak, the wall is being built. Will just see what happens at this point.
My point was not that you should decriminalize entering the country illegally. My point was that you should let them into the country legally. America needs the immigrants. They are good for your economy. Letting them in solves all of the problems. You get all the benefits with none of the draw backs.
My argument here isn't that you should just grant blanket citizenship to all illegal immigrants immediately. My point is that you need to reform your system to make it much easier to obey the law. It is like prohibition. Making alcohol illegal immediately turned otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. You are turning people who would love to follow the law into criminals by making it impossible for them to get what they need legally. Their only recourse is to break the law. By reforming the immigration system to allow them to enter and follow the law everyone benefits. Except possibly the democrats, although the republicans are too stupid to see that.
The barriers being different is also irrelevant to the point. They were planned and designed prior to trump being president. Are the walls in that area taller? yes. Did trump have anything at all to do with that? No. They are therefore not "The Wall", they are additional border fencing that everyone already agreed on. But trump wants to take credit for it anyway because he is a narcissist.
Criminalizing illegal immigrants isn't quite what I think is happening. If we were just talking about crime, illegal immigration is already a crime. And assuming it makes just immigrants look bad is a bit much - they can and have been conflated with illegal immigrants before.
But I understand what you mean. You see statistics, then people refer to those in stats wholesale as immigrants, and frankly those that wont profess to being a career coyote or smuggler wouldn't want to add to their charges. It's a statistic is all, its a fact whether or not the optics are bad for bordercrossing. There's an unfortunate consequence to breaking the law, and that is barring assistance that could have been gained through legal means. This creates a cycle, because the law can't help, they seek illegal means, breaking the law again. In the end, it isn't a matter of the intent to immigrate, it's how it was done.
To a certain degree, amnesty can help, forgiveness to citizenship certainly. However this creates an incentive through instant gratification by breaking the law. The legal process is long even when it isn't backed up, but throwing it out isn't an answer, it's appeasement. Placing the approval process and paperwork after the fact without anything to pace immigration, especially if it's through total amnesty by crossing alone, the process would get a lot longer and much more expensive.
The article does describe a continuation, however it does distinguish the barriers qualities as different. The timeframe is pretty significant too, because spending a decade to progress to another area seems quite a while, so if not significant because it is was not the beginning it is significant as the end of a "pause". These projects are not complete, so in different locations with different barriers there is a significant change, which is why I point to the Yuma comparison with the search link.
Fair enough. The stats themselves can be skewed by political motivation. But I am willing to accept that those are accurate. However, as I addressed in my previous message, they don't always mean what people think they mean. But to put a political statement with quotes from a right wing politician as basically the cover page of a government report shows you what they were intending the report to be used for.
I agree that the people who compiled the stats may not have intended them to be used to make all immigrants look bad. But people then use them to do that. I guarantee you that stats like these have been used to attack immigrants on fox news even though they know these stats include people who are not immigrants. The loudest voices in the immigration debate don't care if the information is accurate or true at all.
I'm glad you acknowledge that many, if not most, of the people crossing the border are good people looking for a better life. The question then becomes, why are we criminalizing them? Make immigration easier so that people who can't afford an immigration lawyer can do it. At that point all the illegal aliens become legal, tax paying Americans. Then you don't have to spend billions hunting down thousands of good people trying to support their family. Instead you make billions with them paying taxes and social security. Security at the border would still be needed of course, but if the bulk of these people were no longer seen as criminals, it becomes much easier to see the criminals because they can no longer try to hide among the immigrants.
That article describes the building of walls that are a continuation of previous policies. That isn't new or unique to trump. They have been building those walls for decades and that has continued at the same pace. In fact the chunk of fencing they are touting as being attributed to Trump has been planned for construction for years. Trump had nothing to do with that project. it was planned and funded before he became president. Trump just likes taking credit for things.
A direct quote from the article:
"In 2009, the Border Patrol identified this improvement project as a priority, he said, long before Trump proposed building a “big, beautiful wall’ that is projected to cost $18 billion. Funding for the Calexico project – about $18 million – was allocated last year."
I realized I missed your curious question. I did not read the public address and I did not cite from it. I cited from the attached link, which was the PDF.
I understand your concern for a political motivation. My understanding is that because they are a government organization, they cannot provide interpretations that are illegal. Drugs and violence are one thing, but if it comes from people the government is not responsible for, the government has to answer for it. So the safest statements wouldn't be "We are working to stem the tide of illegal immigration", because that would suggest it is not possible. It damages public perception of their actual abilities, and by being anecdotal it established their goal without placing blame on their shoulders.
I don't think the stats are a ploy to make immigrants look bad, an immigrant is not the sole issue in border security. Someone who is capable of crossing the border, immigrant or not, would be a concern for a department that does not want illegal crossing in general. Since they are not immigrants, that also means that their position allows them to be repeat offenders, it's quite a risky job to take on a single commission.
I won't place a burden on you to provide a counter statistic in favor of immigrants, because that is not the sole issue. Also I had that issue earlier when I questioned how we think we have good numbers for statistics, so if the means are insufficient to gain a stat to analyse, we'll just go with the best one available. I think it's possible for the immigrants' to have good people, mainly good people even. However crossing in itself tends to have baggage, that being that additional criminal actions or requirements to an eventual goal. So the smugglers are not exempt.
Aside from whether or not Trump has done or believed in things, the new barriers are somewhat different. For one thing, it would be an extension on a decade old plan, with a much higher top. I will attach an article, it may have it's viewpoints when claiming a group of 1,000 was violent (certainly hard to not have someone when there is that many, and they can't endorse), but it was an event on a government publication. I think it's more important that it cites the success in Yuma, contrasted with the old barrier's failure in San Diego. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/12/walls-work
Though it mentions Yuma passively. So I decided to find a better citation, and found a PDF on HSDL https://www.hsdl.org/?search=&searchfield=&all=Yuma+wall&collection=public&submitted=Search
It's a search result because I didn't link a PDF. Try first result, or surprise me with a different one
I got a bit busy and didn't get the chance to. I had a look now and i am curious if you looked at the actual report, or just the press release you linked to. Because the press release would have been written and/or approved by a politically motivated press office. It contains some fairly politically loaded language. For example, it is a fact that immigrants commit less crimes per capita than american citizens (ie they commit less crimes than the average american) but the press release includes lines like:
"Every crime committed by an illegal alien is, by definition, a crime that should have been prevented. It is outrageous that tens of thousands of Americans are dying every year because of the drugs and violence brought over our borders illegally and that taxpayers have been forced, year after year, to pay millions of dollars to incarcerate tens of thousands of illegal aliens."
This is very obviously a politically motivated article. The stats themselves were interesting though.
The problem with the stats is that they include alot of people who are not immigrants. The stats are for illegal aliens. So if a drug smuggler gets caught, they are counted even though they had no intention of living in america and are therefore not an immigrant, they are a smuggler. Lumping them in together is a ploy to make all immigrants look bad.
That article on tunneling was interesting. You may be right that tunneling under the walls for smuggling people is less of an issue than I had thought.
I don't think that minor upgrades or expansions to existing fencing was ever an issue. Almost everyone would be fine with that. Every president does this. Obama certainly did. But at that point it is no long "The Wall". it is an expansion of the system that is already in place. We are now getting into the heart of the issue though. This has never been about immigration at all. Trump has been hiring illegal immigrants for years. He doesn't actually care about keeping them out. The point was not to do something about immigrants, it was about building a monument to rile up his base and give him something to campaign on. As long as people feel like he has done something, then he wins. And to accomplish that he wants to waste billions and billions of dollars, including stealing that money from military construction funds. That is why "The Wall" is stupid. It won't do what Trump says it will. It is a waste of money to help his re-election campaign.
I'm curious, did you check out the DOJ link I provided?
I thought about the financial argument for a while, and came to the conclusion that since I cannot provide numbers that are a drain, I cannot conclude that the illegal immigrant population is a financial drain on the whole population. I could bring up financial scenarios, but since that would be fringe to the individual, I doubt that is worth trying.
But as to how many are paying taxes, if the number is 6 million, and DHS concluded there are 12 million as of 2015, that would be half? Clarity not cost, but they also suggest that studies have a different methodology that can low ball numbers. https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/unauthorized-resident
I also realized why the financial and good person argument was used- based off of these things alone you might assume that there isn't a moral reason to deport these individuals, or try to prevent them from arriving. If the DOJ stats are significant, it shows that 29% in hold of BOP have immigration charges as the primary charge, not only, just primary, and not limited by immigration alone, this can include trafficking. So the rest arriving are unable or unwilling to solely illegally immigrate -whether it is the lifestyle or original intent a let-alone lifestyle was not available. Maybe it's possible from these values that there is a reason other than 'immigrants bad'?
I thought about tunnels too, it appears that technology has gotten better but is still limiting. However tunnels have been overblown in this conversation, because they take months to build but require only a tip or stumbling to find one. If more people did use tunnels, that means eventually there will be less tunnels because that is more informants. Even if the amount found is no small number, the means to find them are not limited and the frequency one is found is high enough to counter the amount. https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/what-lies-beneath
There are well meaning people, and Daca and tps extensions offered on a compromise. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/19/donald-trump-announcement-shutdown-border-white-house/2623790002/ For about 5 Billion, which according to our conversation so far is not enough for a cartoonishly large barrier... but maybe not too little for minor reinforcements. Would anyone care to agree to 7% of a wall, maybe 3%? Maybe with inclined tops for harder pullups ladder or rope resting?
Sure the term argument takes away from the effectiveness argument, but I do put it this way because it is more important for a 'non-occurance' than a remedy. There must be more to immigration fixes and reform than deportation. A better approval system would be nice, but when there are a few that really bog down the system, eventually it backs up until deportation trials only have 7 seconds.
Certainly if you pick that range, it becomes less effective. However if border patrol can pick where the engagement occurs, a larger window becomes more effective. It isn't just a straight line across, it also runs up and down the border's range.
I can concede that someone desperate can pay a coyote. If they don't feel desperate, then they just cross on their own? Also, with the arrest statistics provided I don't think it's out of the question of human trafficking, but to assign desperation supposes motive. If a wall can make someone more desperate, couldn't it also convince someone to not immigrate? And we don't need to suppose poverty and death, there were places that would provide them asylum (and they denied). Was every stop an empoverished hellhole?
The 15 to 1 gives scale on time, with an already absurd amount of time to pass 3 feet or so. Bigger windows would allow for resources to be better appropriated.
It wouldn't hurt to review high traffic areas to address some locations. I am not arguing for the entire border to have a wall and have said that there are areas that are natural barriers, these locations help the patrol pick and choose where the engagements occur. Right now it is up to the best guess based on experience and surveillance. As for manpower and resources, wouldn't it be paid out to Americans building the wall? I understand there's a cost, but that cost isn't being charged to China, some would say it is economically stimulating.
We are getting bogged down in the term proactive. It isn't all that important to the discussion. Whether it is proactive or reactive it is still a dumb policy idea.
Most of the fencing isn't right on the border line. Alot of it is hundreds of meters or even kilometers on the american side. Then on the other side of that fencing there is often more miles they have to cross to reach anything of any actual importance (towns etc). If you only look at the time frame of the moment they are trying to cross the fence then it is easy to say it is 1,000,000 % effective because a few minutes is way longer than the few seconds it would take to walk the distance of the depth of a fence. If you look at the time it takes to get from the mexican border to the nearest town or other important area, it is a fraction of a percent effective. Barely more than an inconvenience to people fit enough to climb.
The people trying to cross the border are desperate. Many of them are leaving areas where they cannot or just REALLY don't want to go back to. if your options are to pay everything you own to a coyote to get a good chance at a better life or going back to poverty or death then that really isn't even a question. if they can't cross on their own they have no option but to pay a coyote. Drug cartels sometimes use tunnels, this is true. But the vast majority of drugs moving across the border come through ports of entry. There is only so much cocaine you can move through a small tunnel. But you can move it by the ton on trucks and boats. The vast majority of those trucks and boats don't undergo any kind of check at the border. It is much easier that way.
The mexico-US border is almost 2,000 miles long. It is completely impossible to have a guard go by every 15 minutes. It is also physically impossible to wall all of it. No matter how much wall you build, there will always be somewhere a few miles further along where there wont be a wall. Fencing in specific high traffic areas makes sense, no one is arguing with that. But those areas have had fences for years. Bush and Obama both built fences there. The idea that you need "wall" is stupid on the face of it. Expanding some fencing in specific areas, sure. A wall that goes for hundreds or thousands of miles is just dumb.
Walls are expensive and labor intensive. in areas with high traffic they have value. in areas with low traffic they serve no purpose at all. The areas with high traffic already have fencing.
But the analogy assumes the boundary created must protect the intended area. The sandbags aren't intended to stop a flood from occuring, just the area it protects. A reactive solution must wait for an action to unfold before it can be implemented, but the wall exists prior to future crossings and is not required to change to do its job. Whether or not it is efficient or able is a different question.
Let me put it to you this way, is a lock a proactive or reactive solution? You can't know the mindset of someone who wants to open a lock, someone will want to even if it's because the lock exists. With combination locks it's only a matter of time too. However, the lock is not required to think or react to do its duty and if successful it will not be unlocked. As a result, there is no recorded unlocking, it simply doesn't factor in.
The time increase is not to a several day trip, but to a specific location that has a boundary. Does an agent have to turn someone around before they have crossed? Certainly they could keep their eye on them but the locations before the wall itself would not require action. Why would it? They haven't crossed over yet if they go miles but not over or around the wall as suggested.
Is it possible this demand was already met by people choosing to cross over themselves? Is it possible that after a potential solution some coyotes won't be able to meet their demands? I get that some people would make a sole argument here for the wall as a symbol, but the wall could also damage consumer confidence, perhaps a potential customer would ask 'how will we go across' and expect a real explanation. The increased demand makes sense, but if it becomes harder prices also go up, which can alienate customers. Perhaps not harder for cartels with tunnels, but they don't want to have their means spotted because of a flaw, and coke doesn't talk nearly as much.
A guard every minute or every 15 minutes? How about the difficulty for a spotter on the border, border patrol only needs to see someone on their side, spotters need to see the other side. A fence would increase visibility, but bars do help obscure visibility.
If a different task requires another tool, it doesn't disregard the effects of the wall on the task it needs to complete. A wall isn't meant for tunnels, so why is it a less of a tool if it doesn't address it directly? If we have the resources (people) to address tunnels, we just need to free them up a bit, right? If not people, what?
Thank you. I will have a look at the stats.
It is effective in the job it is intended to do, divert water. It is also reactionary as it is done at the last minute in response to the issue, whereas a levee would be able to prevent the issue in the 1st place.
Diverting water would mean that, yes. But as i keep telling you, a fence isn't going to stop everyone. Alot of people will still go over it or under it. The rest will divert around it. You times assume that it only takes 1 minute to get from mexico into the heartland of america. There are miles and miles they have to cross to get there. So adding 15 minutes to a several day trip is much less significant. The response window widens by a fraction of a percent.
Coyotes are attractive because they tell people they can guarantee you get across. The harder it is to make the crossing without a coyote the more attractive their services become. Some older people and children might have trouble climbing it. Or they might not be up to making the trip to go around it. This will lead to more people using them causing the number of coyotes to increase. it is a basic economic principle. The wall increases demand. More people will rise to meet that demand.
The wall doesn't reduce how much manpower would be needed. it only slows migrants down by a few minutes. Which means you still need guards very close by. It will also divert people onto other routes meaning you will now need guards there too. It might actually increase how many guards you need if it causes the immigrants to spread out more.
I'm not an expert on tunnels. The debate topic is about whether to build a wall, not to brainstorm more efficient ways of targeting people. We are trying to explain to you why that is a stupid idea. Tunnels are one of the reasons it is a stupid idea. The fact that nobody on the right bothers to actually address that issue is just evidence that they don't actually care about immigration. They know as well as I do that a wall is not a efficient policy proposal. They want the wall because it is a symbol. They want it because it is political, not because it would actually accomplish anything.
I pulled from the attached document, not the page itself but it is DOJ, so it is government and not an educational institute. They also give handy charts with quick summaries.
If it is able to do its job, why was it compared to the dam and levy in terms of effectiveness? It's field of influence decides whether or not it stops flooding in the intended area.
Diverting at least means that one method is closed off- which has been debated. If it takes 15 minutes in what was previously less than a few seconds, it's significant. Assuming it takes 1 minute to cross 3 feet on a flat surface (already ridiculous), the response window widens by over 1,500%.
Please explain why human trafficking would get worse. It's true we don't know the routes of cartel and coyote tunnels, but at least some must be by land. After all, if they already would go around the wall, why don't they just pass over where the wall doesn't exist now?
When manpower can be diverted to search that will be good, but with how much land needs to be covered mass-hiring wouldn't cut it. Tracking guns through a government supplied program has failed as well, if there is any overlap in routes not one was found.
I see tunnels gets brought up a lot. How should the US solve this problem?
Could you provide your source for those stats? I googled it and the details I am seeing are different than the ones you are using so I would like to compare to see how you drew those conclusions.
You seem to have it backwards. A sandbag wall is specialized to the task it needs to do, to hold back water. It is quite effective for this purpose. A successful wall would mean that a crossing does not occur at that particular spot. The border is hundreds of miles long. You cannot build a wall across all of it. All you will do is divert people to a different method of crossing. That might be tunnels. It might be even worse human trafficking. It might mean traveling through rougher areas of the border where fencing isn't possible. Walls will not stop a single person from trying to cross, it will just redirect them to a different area or method. Just like the sandbag with the water. And that is assuming that it is a successful wall. As I have said, anyone with 15 or 20 minutes, a rope or a ladder can get across a bollard fence. So the evidence would suggest that it would not be a successful wall.
Okay, then. Just facts.
FBI Alien Incarceration Report 2018 quarter 1 Report, gathered from the Department of Homeland Security
46% of known or suspected
aliens in BOP (Buereu of Prisons) custody did commit drug trafficking or conspiracy to. That's 17,621 individuals, and only 107 were on simple offenses or pleas to lesser charges.
29% had known or suspected immigration charges as the primary offense, this extends to human trafficking.
4% is fraud, if I can use my imagination I guess that 4% can too. It's not an epidemic, but salient in terms of possible and impossible to collecting benefits and money.
In this report, the exact words are "nonetheless, the lack of comprehensive,comparable data in this area is a noteworthy limitation of this report, because state and local facilities account for over 90% of the total US incarcerated population.
Less than 10% of those in custody, with these numbers...
As to not get too far off track, this is 1/4 of the year, with major charges. Addressing illegal immigration will influence these numbers.
Stats down can mean worse numbers, if the proper values aren't available, because the numbers I have aren't estimates, this is the people caught.
Let me address your flood analogy. The sandbag wall is a pretty sad, ineffective, unspecialized kind of barrier. Barriers that redirect water to lower ground or hold up higher fields of water... sounds like a wall, and if the effectiveness decides whether it's proactive or reactive, that doesn't look to preventative action. A successful wall will ensure that a crossing has not occured, not that a crossing must be corrected. Appeasing a government with money is proactive, but in the US governments hands the methods should be applied by it's officials. The places to our south should be responsible for their own Levy's and damns too, since it is flowing out to us.
Why is the declining birthrate your stance? Or rather, what issue caused by declining bitlrth rates your issue.
the wall will not stop most migrants, if any.
the wall will not stop any drugs. (brought by vehicles thru official spots, or flown/tunneled)
the wall will not stop caravans (legally declared refugees at official spots)
the wall will not stop terrorists, none are passing
the wall wont stop criminals. they rule down south, the people coming are escaping the criminals
its a waste of money to support a policy thats counterproductive. with dropping birth rates and retiring baby boomers, we need MORE immigrants.
How do you find information? You do research from reputable sources. The source doesn't have to be the government. There are countless right wing think tanks that do research. But if they won't tell you how they got their info and from where, then try another one. If you can't find a reputable source saying what you think the truth is, then maybe you are wrong.
Of course we should question those numbers. That is why it is so critical to get a source that cites it's information. The government numbers can be examined. Their methodology can be questioned. The source you gave threw out numbers with no evidence they didn't just make them up on the spot. The reason you will have a hard time finding those kinds of sources is because you are wrong. The sources you will be able to find are fringe groups and lunatics. Anyone who does any kind of actual study would tell you that immigration is a net positive.
You are now just arguing that reality isn't real. The stats went down, so somehow that means the problem got worse.
Let me try this a different way. There is a flood so you put sandbags around your house to protect it. That is reactive. You are reacting to the act of nature. Proactive would be managing the water system to prevent the flood in the 1st place (adding dikes or levees for example). If you wait for the problem to reach you, then you are reacting to it. A wall is the exact opposite of being proactive. And to continue the analogy, the water doesn't disappear when it hits the sandbag. It just goes around it or over it. Putting up a wall doesn't make those people disappear. They will go around the wall, over the wall, under the wall or through the gaps (ports of entry). A wall doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it in a new direction.
I have never heard of a case of that. How would these illegal immigrants get enough information on a dead person to impersonate them? How would they prevent any information relating to their death getting to the government? This seems like a really niche problem that would not widely occur. I can include the possibility of lots of things. That doesn't mean they are actually happening. You are imagining that because it is possible to do this, that it is a common problem. You have no evidence that it actually is a problem. You want to shift the burden of proof away from yourself and onto others. If you think there is a problem, find evidence. As far as i know there is no evidence what you are saying is true.
you have every right to challenge statistics... with facts and other evidence, not a blanket fallacy of ignorance. you also failed to address that the relative benefit vs risk will not change the math by adding more individuals. we get close to the truth with facts, not dissmisals.
what burden falls on individuals? there is no burden. illegals benefit from only the basic services and must find work to survive. they definitely contribute as much as the rest of us while taking minimal benefits. these individual "burdens" are the same as the governmental burdens you claimed before: anecdotal speculation that is contrary to known facts.
theyve been here for decades, have not commited any crimes, paid taxes, have a family, i think we can determine they are productive non threats. especially the ones actively checking in to courts. we very much know about them.
the need for more migrants, not less, not addressed.
Wow, just missed this one by a bit, let me do this one too.
Of course nothing is perfect, but I don't think that means we have no right to challenge statistics. They are not inheretly truth, so using it mathematically there always will be error. But there are holes in our system, and if our border is not secure and our census is not correct, how can we get close to what the truth is? Of course it wouldn't matter if you decided which statistic you like more. So I don't think it's a cop out to say the Cato institute should be held in the same regard as the IRS.
And this burden will go not only to government, but to individuals that cannot handle the burden, such was the 'road' argument.
It's hard to say what citizen has proven what if we didn't even know they were here. The government doesn't know everybody's names, certainly, but they chose to not make themselves known
So I count the IRS as one government group, that has a raw number as a total rather than the overall amount that do pay in. I might have missed an agency, but organizations that receive government money are not governmental, so please let me know which ones you cited that you know are governmental.
So how can I gather evidence that this is common or uncommon? How do I learn? I see the IRS, but the Cato institute, center for migration, and heritage foundation aren't really governmental. Even in the IRS stat it's a raw number, not a percentage, and there's no say of what accurate percentage pay taxes. So taken as gospel, or as government I assume. Cato founded by Koch, heritage is a tax exempt organization, Migration is an "educational institute".
And I do think there's a reason to at least question how these numbers are gathered. And educated guess on the numbers of unstudiable illegal immigrants is still a guess. I would challenge how we can be so certain about it when we don't have a census, because all we can find is what can be reported on. There are sanctuary cities, missing census, various identity thefts and frauds.
When an issue isn't actively studied, it appears to decrease. When border security was considered an issue, child trafficking reportedly increased. Was this increase caused, or was it always there? It could be argued that the prior Fence act didn't go far enough.
I still argue the wall is proactive because when it is successful there is no illegal immigrant, there may be an attempt, but because of the solution the attempt is not recognized to change the record. If you fireproof a house, that isn't waiting for a house fire because that can happen and it is done with the foresight fires can happen. I understand we haven't agreed much on this point but it's bad we can't agree on a definition of all things.
I am not assuming that they have people with dead relatives, they simply have to move in as another person, unrelated. I used the relatives example because it it poignant, you must have heard of at least one. No relationship is necessary. I could just sum it up as social security fraud, but that doesn't imply the long term nature of taking the benefits of one, single, identity, because single identities can be lost for a long time. Reject it if you like, but if you refuse to include it as a possibility in a statistic, that's what I mean about adjusting statistics.
No repeating necessary either, I knew someone who used social fraud, they were here legally but they didn't want to appear to have more than they did, especially since their legal status was not finalized as citizenship. The only reason I didn't share previously is because anecdotes don't mean shit, but I'm not going to be called a lemming to political rambling!
your using the inherent fake of nothing in the world is perfect to essentially say all information is useless and discussion is pointless. thats a cop out and why even bothering to join a debate app (unless you just plan on tackling pure philosophical topics, which this is not)
the statistics is the best information available, however in this case, accurate #s dont matter. if 1000 illegals each contribute more then they take, the cost/benefit ratio wont change with extra numbers.
using roads is such a marginal cost it seems like an argument in bad faith, and if they drive without insurance they are risking getting arrested and deported. and most of the problems you bring up is not with the people, but their undocumented status.
right now we are facing dropping birthrates and an impending retiring babyboomers. the obvious solution is to encourage legal migrants, and to legalize people who have been living here productively for decades (i think they have proven to not be terrorists or burdens) like the people dropping their kids off at school or checking in for their scheduled immigration court dates (the low hanging fruit trump's ice targets).
Any source that won't tell you where they got their info and provide citations should be immediately ignored. So not trust them, do not cite them as evidence. This goes for both right wing and left wing people. People lie, people make things up to support their argument. People have bias. So if you can't tell that your source has actually done research then you should assume they are lying.
You are engaging in the kind of debate that I see alot of right wing people engage in. You are throwing out very specific cases that there is no evidence are common. You then use those hypothetical situations that you don't know how often or even if they occur at all as evidence for a position. You now feel that you are somehow justified in your opinion which is based on no actual evidence or facts. I provided government statistics saying that illegal immigrants contributed far more than any costs. Instead of looking at the evidence to try to refute it you just ignore it and pretend your personal opinion on what is happening is somehow more valid than government statistics. You also attack the validity of the statistics with no evidence that they are in any way flawed.
A wall is, by definition, waiting for the immigrants. You are building it and waiting for them. I don't see how that could be any clearer. A proactive solution would be to try to prevent them from coming. You are right that foreign aid has been used. However when america is actively also trying to make the situation worse (like trying to undermine Valenzuela for example) it is hard to say you have been a positive factor. It is also worth noting that illegal immigrant levels have been steadily falling for over a decade. So perhaps that foreign aid is working.
I didn't say it was easy, it requires some effort. But the average person could scale bollard fencing with basic tools like a ladder or rope. It would only slow people down by a matter of minutes. Especially if they are particularly motivated, which if you are travelling that far looking for a better life, it is fair to assume they are.
I'm not sure what your point about social security even is. You are assuming that alot of illegal immigrants have dead family members with citizenship that they can claim their benefits for. that seems like a rare case. I don't think that is likely to happen much. And since you obviously don't have any facts to back that claim up I simply reject it as it is likely something that some right wing talking head made up and you are just repeating without bothering to check if it is true.
This is the major difference. I cite reputable sources who make their information and methodology available. You cite a right wing hate group with no references showing where they got their information. You seem to think that these sources are in any way equal. You are wrong.
But I do think you took my comparison the wrong way. Social Security fraud requires very little verification, a location, name, and number are a foot in and people have abused it. I find it hard that people wouldn't collect on it if they took the time to defraud the government into said position. They don't even need it to collect on work, just to move burdens off to a name the government cannot collect on, they aren't alive or don't exist. It's not impossible, it's not improbable, and the law has already been broken. So why fraud if it's just for work, even when work isn't done under the table and requires a social ITIN is possible, so why the SSN? Even without the numbers, on principle, that isn't grasping, and what's harder is that there's no way to factor it into the statistics you show. I'm certain it isn't because you've already denied it as impossible, because it's... illegal?
I have already said our methods on getting a good grasp on the statistics is flawed, but I did include the link because as an organization, they did research that affirms their world view, so there isn't another source after them. I wouldn't pretend they have no horse in the race, and are possibly terrible people. But I wouldn't take the SPLC's word on others as gospel on if the goal is racist anti-immigration or just immigration, they've denounced their own people and have bids as well. All things considered, I'm not trying to pretend I know the forest because I saw a tree.
If I needed an example of how statistics can be fudged, I could point to suicide in Japan. Yes, the rate is high, but if a case can't be solved, suicide can be ruled even in poor judgement. In other studies, Middle Easterners can be classified as "White" or "Asian" based on their region or genetics, and misrepresentation is anyone's ball game. Picking definitions, I said a wall was proactive, you said it was reactive. Because we don't have a good grasp, our definitions are heavily limited. If a sentence is used, it will likely need clarification, I sometimes find myself less clear, and sometimes it's just a disagreement of definition.
I suppose I could have been more clear on why I included the statistics, but I do think it was fair as a challenge.
I didn't say I couldn't refute, I simply made a point of how statistics are used to affirm our own positions. And our statistics aren't on base with potential damages, and much less off base. Are there not cities that will not record illegal immigrants on a census, a census that would have legal protections that allow illegal immigrants to answer? A census may be inaccurate, but we are missing very large portions of information. I also see the Cato institute is favored in the statistics case, I believe they're recognized as fairly libertarian. This isn't to say that they are untrustworthy or would lie, but a small hole in the method gathering process wouldn't be hard, especially if the US is ill-equipped to find them.
As for damages not considered, consider when the government or illegal immigrant is not considered responsible. Who pays for a car accident when an illegal immigrant with no insurance can't? Does the cost calculation also include sending illegal immigrants back? How about when they are not sent back? One might assume these questions are included in the statistics, but nothing actually concludes that is the case.
So either I can look at a statistic as I would a tree, and assume I've seen what a forest looks like. I assume you would accuse me of the opposite, being broad with my definitions to fit a minority group. The truth is I think we are ill equipped to do so.
I don't think building a wall would be considered 'waiting for the immigrants' because all country has immigrants, all will have illegal immigrants, but a wall does not need to change to find and return the immigrant, it simply needs to stop them. Foreign aid has been tried, and places along the caravan line have offered asylum. All that continues to happen is corrupt government's failing to improve their conditions. Which is not to say it is an emergency, but that once the money is out of American hands it is entrusted to someone else.
The point of 'more' fencing or 'where' is quite subjective. I'm glad you acknowledge it takes more time, but it isn't easy even with tools. Ladders perhaps to get up, then a rope to get down, if it can be properly secured. But that is an if, and it does require competence, and along a hike competency is challenged, moreso with the terrain.
Of course my points are all over the place, because no single fact determines truth. I don't think it's a flaw. Continued in next post
So you can't refute that they are adding far more than any costs they are creating. Are you conceding that they are a net financial benefit?
I'm not sure you know what the word reactionary means. Building a wall because of what someone else is doing is by definition reactionary. A proactive solution would be to increase foreign aid in the countries these migrants are coming from so they aren't trying to enter your country. If you wait until they are attempting to get into america you are now reacting to them.
Have you ever heard of a ladder or a rope? Basic tools make it much easier to get across a barrier. Yes, a wall will slow them down by a few minutes. But you still need lots and lots of border guards. In high traffic areas fencing makes sense. But there are already a large amount of fencing in those areas. Only idiots think that there is no fencing along the border right now. Adding more means building it in places where it isn't needed or isn't possible.
Your points are kind of all over the place. You acknowledge they are paying taxes. You must understand they can't claim the benefits that would normally be gained for those taxes. You say they may claim benefits for a dead family member. But they could only do that if that family member was a citizen. And even if they were, the person using the dead family member's benefits would still be working and paying taxes. You seem to be trying really hard to justify why they are some sort of financial burden when there is no evidence that that is true.
From the very start of this article I would be highly suspicious. They don't seem to have any citations for where they are getting their stats. As a general rule of thumb if someone won't tell you where they got their info, you shouldn't trust them. After some quick research I can see that this group has been labelled a hate group by civil rights organizations and was founded by a pro-eugenics, white supremacist. They are against any immigration (not just illegal immigration) into the united states. They appear to be an extremely unreliable source.
Since they haven't provided any sources for their info it is difficult to research why they are wrong since they might very well have just made these numbers up. I would be willing to look into sources you provide, but if they won't provide sources for their info then they are useless.
Money, while limited by the budget, has always found a way through increasing deficits. I'm not advocating for a higher deficit, but to suggest that the process has always been a tight ship isn't quite it. Since the jackhammer is used for the same job as the nail, I don't think the metaphor fits. The wall is proactive and prevents more illegal immigrants, and everify returns illegal immigrants. Sure, it stops their continued stay, but the keyword is continued. I understand the metaphor, it's overkill, and overkill with diminishing returns, but it doesn't target the same things and I think that should be considered.
So far, and I've said just recently, statistics are determined by definitions. There's a saying about lies, damn lies, and statistics. I can say your stats are loose, you say mine are, no clear winners. It happens with gun debates, it happens with healthcare, of course it will happen with the wall. I'm not focusing on that for that reason, it misses the forest for the trees.
Explosives are loud you know, that's their nature. Ever been to a fireworks show? fireworks would do much less than what's needed. Crossing a will brings more attention to it than crawling across high grass, dashing over plain ground. The wall isn't needed everywhere obviously, but obviously our eyes is on a small piece of a much bigger land. In short, the wall helps gain perspective, who's trying to get over? There's a reason why Waldo is never alone in 'wheres waldo?'
Because we disagree on how much that cost actually is, your metaphor is apt for your world view regardless of what I say.
But saying that building a wall is reactionary is wrong, because at the point of attempting to illegally immigrate, they are not yet illegal immigrants. It is better to not receive a wound than to effectively heal one. If there is another way around, naturally it has to be addressed another way as well. "Reactionary" isn't a emotional response, it's damage control, I'm not sure how you interpreted it this way.
There's also a reason why everyone doesn't succeed at American Ninja warrior, not every wall that can be vaulted is. By saying it's easy to cross dismisses how difficult some obstacles are, and any setup needs to be removed, else it's a sign of a setup. Tell me, how does a 30 foot fall sound? In the minutes it takes to go over, they may be spotted too, surely you've heard of spotters for illegal immigrants to help cross, increase that time by several hundred percent, and that had better be a big window.
Sure they can pay taxes, I didn't say they all didn't. But you must know what fraud is, and one point in their favor isn't a slam dunk on the various ways to abuse the tax system, so pretending it doesn't exist fixes nothing in favor of these returns. Surely you've heard of families collecting security for dead members, so why can't an illegal immigrants do so? Saying someone pays money is nebulous, I do get that you are establishing the basis for a net gain but when you choose to decide what it applies to I can't help but think it's lacking as a statistic by itself.
https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers You may consider this link biased, fearmongering about illegal immigration, I'm sure they have a worldview, but that's just a statement to how parameters are changed for statistics. I could say the same of the Cato institute, we just pick our lies. So in the end you say less, I say more, and it nothing really changes. I really don't think our figures are accurate because our system doesn't have a good means to hold the numbers. Just passive, after the fact values on whatever can be obtained.
"(E-verify)...I don't think it's a replacement, it's an augmentation to another tool on the belt, in the box, whatever best helps visualize the metaphor."
Sure; however, you're missing the larger point. If we continue your metaphor, the wall is a jackhammer, but the immigration issue is a nail. A jackhammer is gonna drive that nail in eventually, but at what cost and are there better tools for the job? I'd say that a wall, just isn't a good tool for the job in this day and age.
I think you'd agree that money is a limited resource and that even if you buy into the myth that illegal immigrants cost money, that there is a point of diminishing returns. Spending more money to fix a problem than the problem costs simply doesn't make sense. If a business identifies a department that cuts into it's profits by 5%, it doesn't make any sense to spend 10% on fixing that department. It makes more sense to either leave it alone or find an alternative solution that costs maybe 1% and saves 3%.
The same is true for border security, it makes sense to spend very little money on a national e-verify system, but it doesn't make sense to spend money on a wall if a wall will cost more than the problem it's trying to solve. There are simply good and bad solutions to a problem and from a purely fiscal standpoint, the wall is a bad solution to illegal immigration.
The $54 billion/year in cost that the heritage foundation came up with is the total cost of illegal immigrants using roads, sending their kids to public schools, etc.... on average, illegal immigrants cost about $1700/year/person after we factor in the amount they pay in income tax. However, this cost does not factor in that they drive our economy by buying goods (and paying sales tax), it does not factor in the fact that second generation immigrants (the ones we calculate into the cost of the first generation due to schooling) actually contribute more to the american economy than native born Americans. Native born Americans and third generation contribute about 1100-1300/person while second generation contribute about $1600/person. So just looking at the cost of immigrants vs taxes is a bit misleading since there are so many factors.
However, no matter how you slice it, the wall is a terrible investment in terms of cost to benefit ratio. If you're worried about the financial loss due to illegal immigration, you're actually better off not doing anything rather than build a wall.
As far as staffing the wall goes and the Tunnels, you'd need to staff all of the wall all of the time. Tunnels aren't the only means of breaching walls of course. You can run up with a few ladders and get across pretty quickly. You can also use I.E.D's to simply blow multiple holes in the wall and cross that way. Manufacturing explosives is pretty easy and quick.
"it feels like the famed "whataboutism"."
not really; "whataboutism" is a negation of an argument by pointing out a similar stance by another politician. So when someone says Trump did "x" and someone else goes but what about Obama doing "y"; that's "whataboutism". Pointing out scenarios in which a plan would fail is not "whataboutism" it's pointing out flaws in the plan. If I suggest medicare for all and you point out funding issues, it's not a "whataboutism" its a fair critique of the plan. Making the point that there are multiple ways of breaching a wall is a critique of the wall's effectiveness as a method of controlling migration not a negation.
"... social security fraud which they will eventually collect"
well, we know for a fact that illegal immigrants pay more into social security than they take out through fraud. So again, you're better off (fiscally speaking) to do nothing rather than build a wall.
You are still overlooking the fact that they are contributing way more than any costs. Do they use roads, sure. Do they pay taxes, absolutely. Do they drive economic growth, definitely. You are trying to paint them as some kind of economic drain when the fact is they they contribute to society and can only get a fraction of the benefits. Saying they cost money is like saying you are losing money by going to work because you have to pay for gas. Yes you are paying money to go to work, but you are making considerably more by going.
Building a wall is very reactionary. You are reacting to their movement. So you react by spending years and hundreds of billions building a wall. They will then find some other way in by moving to an area you can't or wont build a wall across, digging a tunnel, being smuggled in through a port of entry etc. You will then have to react again.
You don't seem to understand that people can go over a wall too. It takes a matter of minutes for migrants to go over a border fence. They don't actually stop anyone, it just slows them down a bit. You wills till need an army of border guards for those areas. In addition, you will now be diverting some of those people to other less hospitable areas where you don;t have fencing which might actually increase the manpower needs because they are covering a wider area where people are actively trying to cross.
54 billion, even if that number were accurate, is way less the amount they contribute. Some facts I pulled up quickly.
"IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year." - This means they are paying income taxes
"Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security." - These are benefits they are not allowed to receive. So they are paying 7 billion dollars per year into a fund they get virtually nothing out of.
"The Texas State Comptroller reported in 2006 that the 1.4 million unauthorized immigrants in Texas added almost $18 billion to the gross state product, and contributed $1.6 billion in state revenue, while costing the state about $1.2 billion in services used." - They paid more in taxes than they got in services while also adding 18 billion to the productivity of the state making them by a considerable margin a net financial positive.
The idea that they are costing you money is a lie.
Rough terrain and location can be the exception, not the rule with the wall I believe. Not accounting for cost saved when I say this, but the journey is not an easy one. Possible, and possibly fatal, but by limiting the area that can be illegally crossed, personnel and resources around the wall can establish "chokepoints". There doesn't have to be a conflict between natural land and a barrier, some places are naturally barriers.
I understand the everify for SSN would prevent illegal immigrants from gaining access to payroll -proactive- but only proactive so far as an eventually reactive solution, returning the illegal immigrants is something we do. We just don't stop them as often as we could. To be clear, I do think this should be done, it makes sense to verify, it may even help against ordinary fraud issues... but I don't think it's a replacement, it's an augmentation to another tool on the belt, in the box, whatever best helps visualize the metaphor.
I want to address points as they come up, which is why my points are usually divided. I don't particularly like my arguments to lose some of their legs, and I believe that the truth is a mountain of pebbles. In short, there is no "slam dunk". While numbers are important here, the arguments right now feel catch-all, let me challenge that at least.
In the case of cost, it isn't a net positive. You can't say they use no services if they use roads, schools, etc. and it wouldn't be possible to get insurance in case of collisions short of fraud... which isn't out of the question. While the numbers could be debated, they would still use the services they pay for, some may even pay through social security fraud which they will eventually collect. Just because it isn't a legal avenue to use a public service, it does not restrict the service itself.
Though there is a legal way to pay taxes with ITIN, why do you suppose tax evasion and SSN theft is done? It surely isn't easier, but it isn't like there's more action above deportation, prisons are pretty full and their pockets may be emptied before money can be collected.
My point, as it has been, is that the wall is a proactive solution. It is not a reactive solution that returns someone that illegally crosses, even if the cases of overstays/ checkpoint crossings/other is at 60%, the other 40% is pretty significant. We need both proactive and reactive solutions, but we don't just toss a tool because we have a favorite, we use them as needed.
Of course, there is plenty of time to find a tunnel while it is being made, it is no overnight endeavor. Patrolling would be easier if the manpower can be dedicated, so limiting the field by, say, a wall could do that. Tunnels are another part of the issue, since this is treated as all-or-nothing with the wall it feels like the famed "whataboutism". There will be alternatives, but at the very least it is impossible to pass through the wall where previously (a certain amount will) just pass over land. Should that be allowed?
Using different parameters, the sources and numbers can vary. I won't push it further, at the very least 54 billion lost isn't net positive. Walls costs are arguable based on how much land needs to be covered, how labor and materials are appropriated/transferred, we aren't doing that, so I won't push it either.
"Wait, doesn't ICE already raid businesses that hire illegal immigrants?"
Sure; however that doesn't mean business are held responsible. usually it only results in the deportation of a few hundred workers. Currently the law is that "It is illegal to KNOWINGLY hire illegal immigrants". So if you simply don't verify SS #'s etc... you're not violating the law as a business and won't be charged. If you mandate e-verify then every business would be legally culpable for hiring illegal immigrants. See the difference?
First off, I don't know where you got the 116 billion number....I couldn't find a reputable source that had that number. The most conservative estimate I could find was that illegal immigrants cost $54 billion/year after income tax contributions are factored in (The Heritage foundation).
The Cato institute puts the cost of a FENCE at somewhere around $120 billion using an overrun cost of 3.3X (the average overrun cost for large scale government construction costs). This cost would more than double if it's a mix of concrete and steel.
Maintenance would cost around $12.54 billion/year using the cost of current fence maintenance, extrapolating average material cost of Trump's wall prototypes, using a 3.3x overrun, and using current fencing as a model for rate of replacement. Since we're using the current fencing as a model it's likely that again, this cost would be quite a bit higher since immigrants are more likely to damage a full wall rather than a partial fence.
The Center for Migration Studies put out data that shows that about 66% of all illegal immigration is due to visa overstays. So if we use the $240 billion to construct the wall (24 billion/year over 10 years) and cost of maintenance, you get about 23.54 billion/year in cost. The center for Migration Studies says that about 33% of all illegal immigrants use the southern border as a land crossing. So if we use your number that's about $38 billion per year saving a total of $15 billion/year and losing 5 billion if we use the heritage foundation numbers.
However, that is only the case if the wall is 100% effective at stopping ALL illegal immigration from the southern border and that there will be 0% shift in methods of illegal migration. That seems a bit of a fantasy. So if it decreases net illegal immigration across the southern border by 50% (both physically stopping and forcing shifts in how people immigrate) you'd lose money in both your number and the heritage foundation's estimates. This seems like a very poor use of funds.
None of this accounts for the cost of litigation (lawsuits over imminent domain, environmental lawsuits, appropriations, etc...). Nor does it account for environmental impact costs. Even using slat fencing would destroy the flood plains around the Rio Grande according to businessinsider and numerous outlets in Texas, increasing the severity and duration of floods.
Overall the wall doesn't make any fiscal sense at all.
Your 1st point is an argument I hear alot, but makes no sense. Illegal immigrants don't cost you money. They cannot collect services, as they aren't citizens. However they are contributing massively to your economy. Illegal immigrants don't cost you money, they make you money. And 10's of billions of dollars is alot of money. You could use that money to do something actually useful like fund schools, healthcare etc.
Your 2nd point also doesn't seem to make sense. The large majority of illegal immigrants are not crossing the border. So the wall does not even attempt to address the majority of the issue. Border services are using the tools they have. There is already a massive amount of fencing along the border in the places it is needed. Saying "build the wall" is a misnomer as the areas that need a barrier, for the most part, already have one. Further walls are going to be built in areas where they are impractical, unneeded, or just stupid.
Tunnels do take effort. They are by definition discrete. They are underground where agents and walls cannot do anything about them.
I think we should try to focus your arguments. You are throwing out lots of random sentences and I don't have the space on this app to answer all of them.
The cost is fairly small in comparison, where illegal immigrants cost 116 Billion annually a wall would not scratch half as much, and the upkeep less once it's there. Insignificant could be a descriptor, not necessarily the words I'd use, but it is small compared to many policies, current and proposed.
Perhaps if the wall was the sole solution to illegal immigration, overstaying visas would be an issue, but it isn't the only point. People do cross over illegally, not just by waiting out their legal status. Shouldn't our agents use all tools available to them?
Tunnels actually take an effort and time to make, it is not discrete by any means. Wouldn't it be nice to have less patrols across an unsecured flatland and more agents looking for tunnels? Instead of hiring more men, it would be easier to reallocate them, but it's a difficult spread outside of checkpoints.
Much of the land also doesn't disqualify the areas where walls can be made. Is the argument here that people will illegally immigrate across areas privately owned and have rough terrain? Genuine curiosity here.
Yes, we could enforce our laws, but the limitations include 1. a reactive instead of proactive solution, off the books is a real thing 2. repeat crossings 3. less community trust in reporting crime and 4. Sanctuary cities, promising to not only turn a blind eye but provide money.
Wait, doesn't ICE already raid businesses that hire illegal immigrants? Which regulation are you proposing that doesn't tell businesses hiring illegal immigrants is.. well, illegal?
I would suppose checkpoints could be more efficient once the enforcement agency can allocate the manpower for more than a quick glance. Nothing really backwards about managing things, that's why good managers are pretty valuable.
As for the caravan, there were locations on the way to the end of the border that were closer and willing to take refugees. If you get to pick the country that doesn't want to, it sounds more like a vacation than an actual emergency. And they did choose to stop at the border, not just refusing to return home, but actively risking their families lives. It's not a Nazi argument to say the guy that drowned with his kid did something unsafe, and that he must have known that there is a legal way. The wall won't stop them, but if someone won't turn around for their own safety maybe there should be a barrier of sorts.
immigration aside, the wall will be absolutely useless at stopping drugs (which are not being carried by random runners with a small bundle hidden but by trucks passing through legal checkpoints) or planes which fly over walls, or tunnels under walls.
it will also not stop refugee caravans that legally surrender themselves at the border.
"The issue of efficiency and cost is irrelevant "
how so? Money is a limited resource, so if we spend it on ineffective methods we don't have the resources to implement effective methods.
"...would be an effective way of keeping illegal immigrants from crossing the southern border"
It would NOT be an effective method since the vast majority of migrants use legal methods of entry and then simply stay. Most people just buy a two way plane ticket, fly in and just never leave. How is a wall supposed to stop that? Furthermore, if we now spent a bunch of money on a wall, on people to patrol the wall, on the land we'd need to build the actual wall on, etc.... we can't fund things like e-verify and increased security at our ports of entry.
The next issue with a wall is also the fact that people can dig tunnels. How many drug tunnels have been discovered in Texas and California alone? How does a wall prevent that?
A wall is also not really a viable option. Much of the land around the border is private so you'd have to use eminent domain laws to literally steal that land from people. This would result in decades of lawsuits and injunctions adding to the cost of the wall a well. The majority of the actual border is also in the middle of the rio grande, so do you build the wall in the river or do you just give up part of the Rio to mexico? You also can't really build a wall through canyons and over mountains.
"It would also allow for focused law enforcement against the illegal immigrants coming in from other countries"
This is the most backwards argument I've ever heard. Again, money is a limited resource and using it fund a border wall and staffing it will take resources away from other law and immigration enforcement activities. So no, it will actually be detrimental to our ability to holistically tackle illegal immigration.
Things like e-verify are much simpler, cheaper, and more effective. Targeting companies that hire illegal immigrants and taking them task is an effective way of discouraging illegal immigration as the point of coming to the US is to find better paying work and safer living conditions. So taking away that incentive is a very cheap and effective way of stemming illegal immigration from ALL countries and from ALL methods of entry.
There are just so many solutions to illegal immigration that are cheaper and more effective than a wall that it simply makes no sense to build a wall.
It should go up because many illegal immigrants have gotten into the country, which deteriorates infrastructure and wastes money. The issue of efficiency and cost is irrelevant because it would hardly be a drop in the bucket of the government budget and would be an effective way of keeping illegal immigrants from crossing the southern border. It would also allow for focused law enforcement against the illegal immigrants coming in from other countries, which would as a consequence provide for a more secure nation and a nation that can better enforce its own laws.
The short answer is no. There are better, more efficient, and less destructive ways of securing borders. A wall is just a symbol, not a method for securing boarders in modernity.