Adam Ruins Everything: Why a Wall Won't Stop Immigration

[Chris0nllyn]

[video=youtube;K_P9PR5ckFk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_P9PR5ckFk[/video]

 

[vraiblonde]

Adam has some terrific logical fallacies going on, and is forgetting that The Wall (cue the music) wasn't meant to 100% eradicate illegal immigration and nobody ever said it would. He's also forgetting that we're already paying out the ass for illegals, in benefits and in crime.

So yeah, BZZZT. Fail. Is this the best you progbots can do?

 

[itsbob]

Nothing will stop it.. and I have to believe that you're smart enough to know that.. but the Wall will curtail it, and severely hinder those looking for an easy way to cross.

Just the threat of a wall, and actually enforcing our laws has slowed down illegal immigration by how much?? 40%?? 50%?? Or was it more.

There is no obstacle that will stop anyone.. but it will slow them down so you can stop them in other ways.. or make it so hard they won't try.

 

[Monello]

1 out of every 30 people in the US is here illegally. Yowsers.

 

[Monello]

There is no obstacle that will stop anyone.. but it will slow them down so you can stop them in other ways.. or make it so hard they won't try.

Land mines would work but we don't have the stomach to try that tactic. 1 wrong step and you self deport, quickly.

 

[itsbob]

Land mines would work but we don't have the stomach to try that tactic. 1 wrong step and you self deport, quickly.

East/West Germany didn't have very many illegal border crossers, and many less successful border crossers.

Their "wall" in and of itself was insurmountable and it was just Fences.. add the mines to that.. and yeah..

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Adam has some terrific logical fallacies going on, and is forgetting that The Wall (cue the music) wasn't meant to 100% eradicate illegal immigration and nobody ever said it would. He's also forgetting that we're already paying out the ass for illegals, in benefits and in crime.

So yeah, BZZZT. Fail. Is this the best you progbots can do?

So lets spend tens (likely hundreds) of billions of dollars on it with the understandin it won't stop much, while we still "pay out the ass" for the other half of illegals that come via plane? We get stuck with a bunch of federal spending for what?

Nothing will stop it.. and I have to believe that you're smart enough to know that.. but the Wall will curtail it, and severely hinder those looking for an easy way to cross.

Just the threat of a wall, and actually enforcing our laws has slowed down illegal immigration by how much?? 40%?? 50%?? Or was it more.

There is no obstacle that will stop anyone.. but it will slow them down so you can stop them in other ways.. or make it so hard they won't try.

So you're okay with spending money on the largest taxpayer-funded project that won't actually do much of anything?





I thought the GOP was party of limited govt. and limited govt. spending. Instead of real infrastructure, we get a wall? Built by an entity that historically isn'tt very good at keeping costs down for any project.

Case in point:
Obamacare website. Supposed cost: $464 million. Actual cost: $834 million (and still didn't work correctly)
Washington DC Visitors Center. Supposed cost: $265 million. Actual cost: $621 million
VA medical center in Denver. Supposed cost: $590 million. Actual cost: $1.7 billion
NYC Park Bathroom. $2 million for a bathroom.

These are just minor examples and regardless of who is President (and regardless of his past career), govt. is spending other people's money and there is no incentive to reduce overall costs by reducing labor unions participation (thus prevailing wages), reducing rules and regulations, or reducing requirements for affirmative action and minority businesses just to name a few.

I'm certainly not about to let my belief of unproductive and costly govt. projects go to the wayside because a businessman is now President.

 

[black dog]

Israel's wall seems to work pretty good.

 

[PJay]

Land mines would work but we don't have the stomach to try that tactic. 1 wrong step and you self deport, quickly.

Brutal force works. Patting one on their rear then pushing them to cross border, does nothing.

 

[vraiblonde]

I thought the GOP was party of limited govt. and limited govt. spending.

National security is one of the few things the federal government is actually responsible for.

 

[black dog]

Brutal force works. Patting one on their rear then pushing them to cross border, does nothing.

Yep.. I thing it's the verbage on the signs that make all the difference.

 

[glhs837]

Land mines would work but we don't have the stomach to try that tactic. 1 wrong step and you self deport, quickly.

Who do you mean by "we'?

So lets spend tens (likely hundreds) of billions of dollars on it with the understandin it won't stop much, while we still "pay out the ass" for the other half of illegals that come via plane? We get stuck with a bunch of federal spending for what?



So you're okay with spending money on the largest taxpayer-funded project that won't actually do much of anything?

See, there's the fallacy again. You say "wont stop much", "wont do much", but that's a judgment that most people other than those that are ideological opponents would say is false. The old all or nothing fallacy. If A doesn't do everything, then A is worthless. Door locks don't stop all break ins, why do we spend millions on door locks. All the medicine in the world doesn't stop all the heart attacks, why we spend billions on medicine. Hell, why much do we spend on policing if it doesn't stop all crime?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

National security is one of the few things the federal government is actually responsible for.

I agree with that, but will not go so far as to equate a few criminals/illegals as a national security issue. I will also not buy into the idea that this country, with all our technology and secretive spying on , well, everyone, somehow needs to resort to a simple concrete wall in order to stop national security threats.

See, there's the fallacy again. You say "wont stop much", "wont do much", but that's a judgment that most people other than those that are ideological opponents would say is false. The old all or nothing fallacy. If A doesn't do everything, then A is worthless. Door locks don't stop all break ins, why do we spend millions on door locks. All the medicine in the world doesn't stop all the heart attacks, why we spend billions on medicine. Hell, why much do we spend on policing if it doesn't stop all crime?

The cost/benefit ratio doesn't seem there to me.

Especially compared to infrastructure projects here at home. As a local example, the TJ bridge is estimated at $670 to $790 million to replace. We could build like 70 TJ bridges for the cost of that wall which arguably has a much larger impact on the quality of life of an American than a wall (the definition of which seems to fluctuate).

 

[black dog]

So taking say 25 to 45 million out of the job and giveaway programs along with the drop in crime will have no effect on the typical citizen?
The replacement of a bridge doesn't tend to change much.
Just look at the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge, traffic still backs up everyday on it.
Just like the Thomas bridge, a new bridge that will still have a single feeder on the street Mary's side. And if they do add lanes to the St Mary's side it still is controlled by traffic lights feeding it. Traffic will still backup everyday.

 

[glhs837]

I agree with that, but will not go so far as to equate a few criminals/illegals as a national security issue. I will also not buy into the idea that this country, with all our technology and secretive spying on , well, everyone, somehow needs to resort to a simple concrete wall in order to stop national security threats.



The cost/benefit ratio doesn't seem there to me.

Especially compared to infrastructure projects here at home. As a local example, the TJ bridge is estimated at $670 to $790 million to replace. We could build like 70 TJ bridges for the cost of that wall which arguably has a much larger impact on the quality of life of an American than a wall (the definition of which seems to fluctuate).

Depends on how you calculate the cost of the Border Restriction System (BRS) and how you estimate the value to citizens if you reduce illegal immigration. and yes, the "wall" should by it's nature be in flux, changing to meet the flow. some places, a couple of guys in a truck driving around is sufficient. in others, you might need a 20 foot barbed wire barrier. And a huge friken moat on this side that goes 40 feet down. Turns tunnels into self flushing toilets

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So taking say 25 to 45 million out of the job and giveaway programs along with the drop in crime will have no effect on the typical citizen?
The replacement of a bridge doesn't tend to change much.
Just look at the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge, traffic still backs up everyday on it.
Just like the Thomas bridge, a new bridge that will still have a single feeder on the street Mary's side. And if they do add lanes to the St Mary's side it still is controlled by traffic lights feeding it. Traffic will still backup everyday.

25 to 45 million? Many of whom are taxpayers, paying into our system while not being able to collect things like SS and Medicare?

Regardless, and I'll repeat this again below, there's no way there's any sort of payback period for this. The wall itself will likely be close to $100 billion, plus the maintenance/upkeep, border patrol expansion, etc. are annual costs that will likely triple current budgets (if not more). There's likely not a way this wall pays for itself through reduced crime, and surely not through a loss in tax revenue, when coupled with increased upfrant and recurring costs of the wall itself.

I prefer to not pay more in taxes for a warm fuzzy feeling that escapes reality.

Depends on how you calculate the cost of the Border Restriction System (BRS) and how you estimate the value to citizens if you reduce illegal immigration. and yes, the "wall" should by it's nature be in flux, changing to meet the flow. some places, a couple of guys in a truck driving around is sufficient. in others, you might need a 20 foot barbed wire barrier. And a huge friken moat on this side that goes 40 feet down. Turns tunnels into self flushing toilets

Even if you believe certain accounts out there (there are plenty), one estimate says the annual cost for all corrections, medical and support services for adults and juvenile immigrant criminals nationally to be over $1.8 billion dollars.

Rounding for math, that's $2 billion per year. A round number for wall cost is, say, $50 billion. That's a 25 year pay back assuming ALL illegal immigrants go away with the completion of the wall. Factor in everything I mention above, then what? 30, 40, 50 year payback? Not much of a ROI to me.

What Trump wants us to believe is that spending this much on a wall, to only stop a fraction of those coming here illegally is a good thing. That a 10% reduction rate of illegal entries into this country is worth the astronomical costs associated with it. I'm simply not buying it and believe there are better ways to go about illegal immigration. But we've entered a realm of populism, or nationlism, a time where anyone who doesn't "look" 'Murican must be a drain on us as a country and we must pull out all the stops to prevent some of them from entering.

 

[glhs837]

Hmmm, 75/100 is a fraction Or 3/4 if you wish

 

[black dog]

I believe that most illegals use way more Services than they pay into.
I worked around hundreds in a span of 10 years, most had 5 to 7 dependants on there tax forms so the minimum would be deducted from there paycheck.
Plus the wife / girlfriend was living in subsitized housing and received every perk she could from the federal, state and county government.

 

[Hijinx]

East/West Germany didn't have very many illegal border crossers, and many less successful border crossers.

Their "wall" in and of itself was insurmountable and it was just Fences.. add the mines to that.. and yeah..

The berlin wall was a bit more than a wall. There was a dead line on the other side. Cross it and die.

 

[Hijinx]

25 to 45 million? Many of whom are taxpayers, paying into our system while not being able to collect things like SS and Medicare?

Regardless, and I'll repeat this again below, there's no way there's any sort of payback period for this. The wall itself will likely be close to $100 billion, plus the maintenance/upkeep, border patrol expansion, etc. are annual costs that will likely triple current budgets (if not more). There's likely not a way this wall pays for itself through reduced crime, and surely not through a loss in tax revenue, when coupled with increased upfrant and recurring costs of the wall itself.

I prefer to not pay more in taxes for a warm fuzzy feeling that escapes reality.



Even if you believe certain accounts out there (there are plenty), one estimate says the annual cost for all corrections, medical and support services for adults and juvenile immigrant criminals nationally to be over $1.8 billion dollars.

Rounding for math, that's $2 billion per year. A round number for wall cost is, say, $50 billion. That's a 25 year pay back assuming ALL illegal immigrants go away with the completion of the wall. Factor in everything I mention above, then what? 30, 40, 50 year payback? Not much of a ROI to me.

What Trump wants us to believe is that spending this much on a wall, to only stop a fraction of those coming here illegally is a good thing. That a 10% reduction rate of illegal entries into this country is worth the astronomical costs associated with it. I'm simply not buying it and believe there are better ways to go about illegal immigration. But we've entered a realm of populism, or nationlism, a time where anyone who doesn't "look" 'Murican must be a drain on us as a country and we must pull out all the stops to prevent some of them from entering.

I bet the walls around the beltway really piss you off.
They are there to shield homeowner from noise. Yet some noise gets through.
How come the expense for those walls don't have you climbing the walls.