(02-17-2017 11:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(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:  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.

It is what I get for not reading the entire article.

(02-17-2017 11:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  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.

I get your point..but..I think the structure being discussed would be technically sophisticated to alert to any movement in proximity to it. I imagine we have the ability to erect an impregnable barrier if we wish. The question is...should we?

One thing that bothers me....How do we keep the criminals we are deporting..from returning without a physical barrier?

(02-17-2017 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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.

needs other sources because math is hard.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(02-17-2017 11:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  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.

deport the one's that stay.

because we deported more people.

show me a 10 foot ladder and I'll show you razor wire plus an 11 foot fall. seriously though we haven't seen the design yet. there's ways to make it difficult to get over.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(02-17-2017 12:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  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.

deport the one's that stay.

because we deported more people.

show me a 10 foot ladder and I'll show you razor wire plus an 11 foot fall. seriously though we haven't seen the design yet. there's ways to make it difficult to get over.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

that's not really the point.

(02-17-2017 12:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 12:42 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 11:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  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.

deport the one's that stay.

because we deported more people.

show me a 10 foot ladder and I'll show you razor wire plus an 11 foot fall. seriously though we haven't seen the design yet. there's ways to make it difficult to get over.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

that's not really the point.

I just think we need to remove the incentives to come here illegally. Clear up the anchor baby citizenship question,end ALL government handouts and dry up the jobs for anyone without our permission to work. Seems pretty simple to me. This reduces considerably the amount of money illegals cost the taxpayers without having to build a structure to maintain forever. We want their labor. We just don't want the associated costs of illegal immigration. I welcome anyone to America that wants to come here and work as long as I am not expected to finance that endeavor.

(02-17-2017 01:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I just think we need to remove the incentives to come here illegally. Clear up the anchor baby citizenship question,end ALL government handouts and dry up the jobs for anyone without our permission to work. Seems pretty simple to me. This reduces considerably the amount of money illegals cost the taxpayers without having to build a structure to maintain forever. We want their labor. We just don't want the associated costs of illegal immigration. I welcome anyone to America that wants to come here and work as long as I am not expected to finance that endeavor.

Yes. Come up with some mechanism (a "red card" has been proposed) that allows them to stay here and work indefinitely but confers no path to citizenship, and no anchor babies. Then we get control of the issue, how many are here and where they are, and we can start imposing proper legal controls.

(02-17-2017 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 01:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I just think we need to remove the incentives to come here illegally. Clear up the anchor baby citizenship question,end ALL government handouts and dry up the jobs for anyone without our permission to work. Seems pretty simple to me. This reduces considerably the amount of money illegals cost the taxpayers without having to build a structure to maintain forever. We want their labor. We just don't want the associated costs of illegal immigration. I welcome anyone to America that wants to come here and work as long as I am not expected to finance that endeavor.

Yes. Come up with some mechanism (a "red card" has been proposed) that allows them to stay here and work indefinitely but confers no path to citizenship, and no anchor babies. Then we get control of the issue, how many are here and where they are, and we can start imposing proper legal controls.

yep.

(02-17-2017 11:59 AM)john01992 Wrote:  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.

- Sure, but how does that make it somehow 'okay'? I'm actually less concerned with these people (in general) because most of them don't come here merely to send money back home. Sure, some do, but most come here and stay here and spend all that they earn here... and many of them were here on things like student visas, meaning they are educated and able to contribute more to society than uneducated day laborers... so they generally contribute far more to our economy than those who work here and send money overseas. I'm not saying they aren't an issue at all... I'm merely saying they wouldn't be my top priority.

- Only because of the economic and political climates... meaning that just by TALKING about doing something, we've been somewhat effective

- A secure border isn't about a single act or impediment, which is why nobody who supports stronger border enforcement really cares if its an actual wall or not. A secure border is as much about an attitude and focus as physical barriers. Of course there will still be some illegal immigration, but it wasn't that long ago that Dems were supporting massive fines for companies that hired illegals. That didn't stop illegals from working, it just stopped the bigger companies from hiring them. IMO, the biggest problem with illegal immigration is that for many people it makes legal immigration 'not worth it'.

(02-17-2017 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2017 01:57 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I just think we need to remove the incentives to come here illegally. Clear up the anchor baby citizenship question,end ALL government handouts and dry up the jobs for anyone without our permission to work. Seems pretty simple to me. This reduces considerably the amount of money illegals cost the taxpayers without having to build a structure to maintain forever. We want their labor. We just don't want the associated costs of illegal immigration. I welcome anyone to America that wants to come here and work as long as I am not expected to finance that endeavor.

Yes. Come up with some mechanism (a "red card" has been proposed) that allows them to stay here and work indefinitely but confers no path to citizenship, and no anchor babies. Then we get control of the issue, how many are here and where they are, and we can start imposing proper legal controls.

I'm good with that, but the anchor baby issue is a fundamental citizenship issue... I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be changed... merely that it's a big deal as it doesn't only impact those few people (though I suppose you could try to make it so that it did).

(02-17-2017 11:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(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.

So no takers?