I believe that it would make Border Patrol's job significantly easier and would work to discourage those who would try to illegally cross into this country. I think it would be a step in the right direction towards fixing the illegal immigration problem. The first thing you do is secure the border, which I don't believe can feasibly happen without a physical border, then you work to punish those who would hire illegal immigrants already in the country. Before long the problem would start to solve itself. Also, if you actually secured the border and worked to prevent those who are here from being able to get employment, you could then work in some kind of path to citizenship for those who arrived before a certain time. Of course, all of that goes out the window if people balk at step 1 and IMO even if the worst case scenario of the wall costing 70 billion dollars comes true, it's well worth it if it leads to finally fixing the worst illegal immigration problem in the world. I mean, it's something that SHOULD have bipartisan support given that all of the welfare state programs the Democrats want would be much more feasible without the illegal immigration problem.
I would agree, but it's more than just people smuggling we're trying to stop at the border, that's why a physical wall would help. The step 2 does the heavy lifting when it comes to the illegal immigration problem, but step one secures the border which is something long overdue.
LOL... back to this lie. But hey, lets pretend he is telling the truth... then there is no need to come up with any money for his expensive, ineffective vanity wall. So why is he shutting down the government?
Weak whataboutism. So 11 years ago Senator Schumer was in favor of strengthening border security. And, in 2019 it appears Schumer and fellow Democrats are still in favor of strengthening border security. They have already proposed this. In favor of using more technology to supplement more border agents. All good approaches to strengthening border security. Heck, repair any existing fences in disrepair. Just not interested in wasting money on a costly, ineffective wall to be built.
Ah, the days before "orange man bad" politics, when even Chuck Schumer was capable of making competent border security comments.
But if you made the slats wide enough to let Big Foot through, the brown skin people south of the border, who are publicly Catholics (which is mildly undesirable as well) and are privately really Muslim Jihadists, will get through as well.
Every Dem should follow up behind this statement about "Mexico paying for the wall through trade deal" with explaining that what Trump is saying is that Mexico will pay for the wall through American corporations paying more taxes. That's the only way to translate his BS statement about his trade deal paying for the wall. Either way, its your Taxes or your companies Taxes that are paying for a stupid wall in the middle of the GDamn desert.
It means that under Trump logic, American corporations are paying more taxes that might or might not go back towards funding some unknown project that the Canadian government might have funded themselves.
This line of Trumplogic also undermines the core economic philosophy around this one legislative accomplishment in the Corporate Tax Cut. Which made the case that it is better for Companies to pay less taxes to invest elsewhere or invest in their people (which didn't happen). That case was so strongly believed in by the Right that those "DEFICIT HAWKS" thought it was worth BORROWING more than a TRILLION DOLLARS against our deficit. So either you believe Trump's logic about how to pay for infrastructure through corporate taxation, or you believe in the only major Trump legislative accomplishment. It cannot be both.
Step 1 does not do anything. Walls do not stop the criminals or drugs, it may stop women or children but they may find a way around them too. It's just political grandstanding, if both sides wanted to stop illegal immigrants they would have done it a long time ago. Maybe they both know it will do harm to the economy and drive up inflation...
Again, I'm willing to accept that as a possibility, but worst case scenario you wasted at most 70 billion dollars....which is nothing compared to what people in Washington waste every single year. At best, it makes Border Patrol's job easier and helps secure the border like Senator Schumer would have told you before the days of "orange man bad" politics. There is literally no valid argument that eliminating illegal immigration would be a bad thing. You might as well be arguing that eliminating crime would be a bad thing. Would eliminating essentially a slave class cause some changes? Perhaps a little bit, but it wouldn't be a negative thing.
Why would you want to waste another 70 B? Using your logic, there will be no end in sight. However, the issue is not simply that, the wall will not solve anything. What I think the politicians are doing is fighting over the wall because it is easier than to fix the real problem. They will haggle for a long time just to show they are doing something and in reality they are staying off the real issue. In the coming weeks, they may come to an agreement to fund some money for the wall so Trump can declare a win and protection for the Dreamers so the Democrats can declare a win, afterward they will just push it into the background and things will stay exactly where they are. Of course, the end result of eliminating all illegal immigrants will cause more inflation. Republican has argued forever about raising minimum wage because it means just that, they even said the people with minimum wage raised would not see any benefits because price will go up accordingly. Now imagine, if there is no one that will work for $7.50 or less, what do you think will happen? Make your argument smartly, don't just throw out the thing about eliminating crime, it's just stupid.
Again, I don't see it as a waste even if those are the current DNC talking points (remember back before "orange man bad" politics were a thing and they supported a physical border, I miss those days). I agree with Border Patrol that a physical barrier is necessary to securing the border. i'm saying the absolute worst case scenario it's nothing more than a waste of 70 billion, something the congress was going to do anyway on other pork BS. It's a situation where there is no real downside. Now as to your argument about how the system would fail without essentially a slave class....why doesn't that happen in any other country? No country in the world has the illegal immigration problem that the US faces. They manage to function without slaves, why again can't we? It's just a foolish argument that IMO is inherently immoral to begin with even if it was accurate....and it's not accurate.
70 B spent on something that is not necessary. You can argue until your face turns blue but that is a definition of a waste. Again, it does not matter if they, left or right, spend a dime on another wasteful item. That does not change the 1st fact. I don't care about the argument before or after the orange man, whether the left or right argued for or against it. It does not change the fact that the wall is not necessary. The only thing that is true is this: If the illegal immigrants do not have a job, they will leave. Period. There is no other argument. If the politicians talk about anything else, that is to skirt around the issue, they will forget to solve the real problem. You are wrong about other countries, they in fact have problems with inflation exactly because they do not have access to cheap labor and they can not grow like we do because they do not have the demand for good and services those cheap labor also need.
