ANALYSIS: Border Wall Only Needs To Stop 9-12% Of Illegal Crossings To Pay For Itself

Quote:President Donald Trump’s border wall only needs to stop about 10 percent of illegal crossing in order to pay for itself, according to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The estimated $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall would quickly be offset by the savings to the government if fewer illegal immigrants arrive in the country over the next decade, CIS found. Only a small portion of the population of people who are expected to attempt an illegal crossing in the next decade — between 9 and 12 percent — would have to be stopped for the wall to totally pay for itself.

The analysis from CIS, a group that advocates for moderating immigration levels, relies on fiscal estimates from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) for the average cost to taxpayers of illegal immigrants. NAS estimates one illegal immigrant costs state and local governments approximately $75,000 in a lifetime, taking into account taxes paid and the cost of providing benefits such as education and health care.

If Trump’s border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 people from entering the country illegally, CIS finds, the savings would offset the expected cost of the wall.

Estimates on the cost of the wall have ranged from as low as $8 billion to as high as $20 billion. Opponents of its construction argue the wall will not be effective in stopping all immigrants, and use that argument in conjunction with the price tag to assert building the wall is a waste of resources. While CIS finds it would quickly pay for itself, the analysis does note most of the fiscal burden for illegal immigrants falls on state and local governments, while the cost of the wall will fall on the federal government.

Nevertheless, the cost estimates are somewhat conservative, as they do not take into account the cost to the government of the children of illegal immigrants. If those costs are included as estimated by NAS, the fiscal drain increases to about $95,000 per illegal immigrant. CIS also notes the wall could save taxpayers nearly $64 billion over the next decade if half of the crossings are stopped — more than three times the expected cost of the wall.

Trump was able to order construction of a substantial wall on the Mexico border shortly after taking office, because of a 2006 law passed with the help of Democrats — including then-Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. The law authorized the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, as well as additional lights, cameras and sensors to enhance security.

Although former President George W. Bush signed the measure into law, the Democrat-controlled Congress that took over a few months later ensured it would never be completed by means of an amendment to a 2008 spending bill.

The amendment removed an explicit requirement the wall be made of double-layer fencing, and gave the Department of Homeland Security authority to put in place less effective barriers, such as simple vehicle barriers that do not keep pedestrians out. As a result, Democrats were able to avoid a politically unpopular vote against the wall, and then turn around and quietly gut its construction. But Trump and Republicans in Congress are now using that law to ensure a proper wall is constructed.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/16/analys...or-itself/

Quote:The analysis from CIS, a group that advocates for moderating immigration levels,

well there's your problem...

Daily caller linked story.

Drink.

(02-17-2017 10:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Daily caller linked story.

Drink.

citing a source that is listed as a hate group.

Finish your drink.

You libs are too funny. So the Daily Caller isn't a valid media source, but CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC are?

(02-17-2017 10:55 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  You libs are too funny. So the Daily Caller isn't a valid media source is, but CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC are?

no the daily caller is not a valid source. look no further than this current article if you need proof as to why. here's what DC is using as a source:

Quote:Past reports by the CIS have been deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the political spectrum (such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, the Heritage Foundation and Center for American Progress); left-leaning, neutral and right-leaning media (including the Wall Street Journal, Politifact and NBC News); several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations (such as Migration Policy Institute and the American Immigration Council); and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.[30][31][32][33][34][35][2][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]

Quote:Writing in 2007 about a recent CIS report, Wayne A. Cornelius, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UCSD, said, "Like all reports emanating from the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C., the latest one... offers a relentlessly negative view of the most recent wave of immigration to the United States. The economic benefits of immigration – even illegal immigration – to the average American are barely acknowledged, while the costs are estimated in such a way as to provoke the maximum degree of public anger and anxiety."[33]

Quote:The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002[43] and 2009[44] connecting CIS to John Tanton, who helped found various other organizations, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA, and showing he has ties to white supremacy groups and a eugenics foundation.

Quote:In 2004, a Wall Street Journal editorial repeated the SPLC's allegation that CIS is part of a network of organizations founded by Tanton and also charged that these organizations are "trying to stop immigration to the U.S." It quoted Chris Cannon, at the time a Republican U.S. Representative from Utah, as saying, "Tanton set up groups like CIS and FAIR to take an analytical approach to immigration from a Republican point of view so that they can give cover to Republicans who oppose immigration for other reasons."[35]

and in regards to the OP: the actual conclusions used by the CIS from an academic report conflicts with the conclusions drawn from the researchers of the report themselves as well as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

wow, extreme #winning and extreme butthurt in the same thread. Happy Friday!

(02-17-2017 11:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  wow, extreme #winning and extreme butthurt in the same thread. Happy Friday!

I love how you preach the denial of facts.

(02-17-2017 11:09 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  wow, extreme #winning and extreme butthurt in the same thread. Happy Friday!

I love how you preach the denial of facts.

I rest my case. Settled Thread Science.

(02-17-2017 11:11 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:09 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:07 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  wow, extreme #winning and extreme butthurt in the same thread. Happy Friday!

I love how you preach the denial of facts.

My lies = your truth

FTFY

It is being reported that illegal immigration costs the tax payers 113 billion per year.

I can't make the argument that building a wall that could cost upwards of 25 billion would not have a tremendous ROI to the taxpayers. Hell...Even even if the the cost of this balloon(which it for sure will) to 50 billion.. it still would have a great ROI.

This reality makes me ponder my position against the wall. I honestly think we can accomplish the same goal with other solutions..but..the wall would be the simplest Federal response to this problem. I personally am not a fan of building walls..but..Im afraid that we lack the will to attack illegal immigration using other methods.

A wall also makes the illegals we deport?...stay deported.

(02-17-2017 11:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is being reported that illegal immigration costs the tax payers 113 billion per year.

I can't make the argument that building a wall that could cost upwards of 25 billion would not have a tremendous ROI to the taxpayers. Hell...Even even if the the cost of this balloon(which it for sure will) to 50 billion.. it still would have a great ROI.

This reality makes me ponder my position against the wall. I honestly think we can accomplish the same goal with other solutions..but..the wall would be the simplest Federal response to this problem. I personally am not a fan of building walls..but..Im afraid that we lack the will to attack illegal immigration using other methods.

A wall also makes the illegals we deport?...stay deported.

are any of those sources credible?

$120 per person per a story posted yesterday. where do I sign?

$25B is the highest estimate I've seen. That's around 1% of our nation budget for 1 year. where do I sign?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Let's ignore the source and talk about the issue.

Illegal Aliens certainly cost governments money. I know they cost Hospitals money...
Illegal Aliens can contribute to keeping wages down
Illegal Aliens by and large send large portions of the money they earn, mostly untaxed, across the border where it generates no multiplicative effect on our economy.
Illegal Aliens reduce the need for technological innovation HERE, which at the margin reduces demand for technology advances in labor intensive industry

Those are all 'costs'.... and these 'costs' in ANY reasonable analysis must be included... and not merely the 'dollars invested'. The left knows this, as they often joke that illegals will be building the wall... so they recognize that like most government expenditures, jobs are being created.

If 'real' unemployment were 2-4% as it has been from time to time, illegals provide a valuable labor resource in a tight labor market... the problem is that we can't monitor/control that as a means to smooth the issues they create... mostly that since Mexico/Central America's economies are highly correlated to the US, when our economy is hot, their's is solid as well, and when ours is cooler and we'd like them to return home, theirs is most often even worse.

(02-17-2017 11:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is being reported that illegal immigration costs the tax payers 113 billion per year.

I can't make the argument that building a wall that could cost upwards of 25 billion would not have a tremendous ROI to the taxpayers. Hell...Even even if the the cost of this balloon(which it for sure will) to 50 billion.. it still would have a great ROI.

This reality makes me ponder my position against the wall. I honestly think we can accomplish the same goal with other solutions..but..the wall would be the simplest Federal response to this problem. I personally am not a fan of building walls..but..Im afraid that we lack the will to attack illegal immigration using other methods.

A wall also makes the illegals we deport?...stay deported.

are any of those sources credible?

This was a Politifact study. They have been repeatedly bashed from the right as being liberally biased...so...I guess it depends on your view of credible.

Hell...Even if illegal immigration was actually 1/2 of that number annually?...Id still have a hard time making an argument that the wall would not have good ROI.

(02-17-2017 11:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is being reported that illegal immigration costs the tax payers 113 billion per year.

I can't make the argument that building a wall that could cost upwards of 25 billion would not have a tremendous ROI to the taxpayers. Hell...Even even if the the cost of this balloon(which it for sure will) to 50 billion.. it still would have a great ROI.

This reality makes me ponder my position against the wall. I honestly think we can accomplish the same goal with other solutions..but..the wall would be the simplest Federal response to this problem. I personally am not a fan of building walls..but..Im afraid that we lack the will to attack illegal immigration using other methods.

A wall also makes the illegals we deport?...stay deported.

are any of those sources credible?

This was a Politifact study. They have been repeatedly bashed from the right as being liberally biased...so...I guess it depends on your view of credible.

Hell...Even if illegal immigration was actually 1/2 of that number annually?...Id still have a hard time making an argument that the wall would not have good ROI.

can you link it? I'm curious.

(02-17-2017 10:55 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  You libs are too funny. So the Daily Caller isn't a valid media source, but CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS and ABC are?

Well, I never said that.

Do you deny that it was formed by ultra right-winger Tucker Carlson and leans hard right?

You just seem to be using it quite a bit lately as seemingly your only source, so I decided to create a drinking game out of it.

But to suggest that it's on par with NBC, CBS and ABC is utterly ridiculous and I think you know that.

(02-17-2017 11:40 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is being reported that illegal immigration costs the tax payers 113 billion per year.

I can't make the argument that building a wall that could cost upwards of 25 billion would not have a tremendous ROI to the taxpayers. Hell...Even even if the the cost of this balloon(which it for sure will) to 50 billion.. it still would have a great ROI.

This reality makes me ponder my position against the wall. I honestly think we can accomplish the same goal with other solutions..but..the wall would be the simplest Federal response to this problem. I personally am not a fan of building walls..but..Im afraid that we lack the will to attack illegal immigration using other methods.

A wall also makes the illegals we deport?...stay deported.

are any of those sources credible?

This was a Politifact study. They have been repeatedly bashed from the right as being liberally biased...so...I guess it depends on your view of credible.

Hell...Even if illegal immigration was actually 1/2 of that number annually?...Id still have a hard time making an argument that the wall would not have good ROI.

can you link it? I'm curious.

Actually...I have to amend this and admit misreading it...Politfact was debating Trumps assertion of 113 billion. They said it was false. Estimates from them are inclusive...so...I have no credibility on the above comment. Thanks for making me relook at it. When Im wrong...I admit it.

Estimates of around 85 billion to lower have been sited from several studies...all inconclusive it seems. I find it hard not to believe that the costs are not annually more than it would cost to build the wall..but..it seems the numbers are not solid enough to know at this point.

(02-17-2017 11:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:40 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is being reported that illegal immigration costs the tax payers 113 billion per year.

I can't make the argument that building a wall that could cost upwards of 25 billion would not have a tremendous ROI to the taxpayers. Hell...Even even if the the cost of this balloon(which it for sure will) to 50 billion.. it still would have a great ROI.

This reality makes me ponder my position against the wall. I honestly think we can accomplish the same goal with other solutions..but..the wall would be the simplest Federal response to this problem. I personally am not a fan of building walls..but..Im afraid that we lack the will to attack illegal immigration using other methods.

A wall also makes the illegals we deport?...stay deported.

are any of those sources credible?

This was a Politifact study. They have been repeatedly bashed from the right as being liberally biased...so...I guess it depends on your view of credible.

Hell...Even if illegal immigration was actually 1/2 of that number annually?...Id still have a hard time making an argument that the wall would not have good ROI.

can you link it? I'm curious.

Actually...I have to amend this and admit misreading it...Politfact was debating Trumps assertion of 113 billion. They said it was false. Estimates from them are inclusive...so...I have no credibility on the above comment. Thanks for making me relook at it. When Im wrong...I admit it.

Estimates of around 85 billion to lower have been sited from several studies...all inconclusive it seems. I find it hard not to believe that the costs are not annually more than it would cost to build the wall..but..it seems the numbers are not solid enough to know at this point.

well you are honest and straight forward.

putting aside the domestic costs per immigrant.

-a large chunk (if not most) of the people who are illegal do so because they entered legally then stayed.

-illegal immigration at the border is at a historic low

-show me a 10 foot wall and I will show you an eleven foot ladder.