It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: CynConcepts
originally posted by: ScepticScot
That isn't really technically an opportunity cost but let's not get bogged down In semantics.
1. Is that 100b a verified net cost and if so what's the source.
2. What evidence is there that the wall will reduce immigration by sufficient to be cost effective.
3. Would alternative ways of reducing immigration be more cost effective.
4. Have you apologised to uncommitted for your post in page 1. Manners cost nothing after all (unlike the wall).
Perhaps one should review facts for themselves.
Costs of illegal immigrants: Researchers agree that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education. There is also agreement that immigrants with this level of education are a significant net fiscal drain, creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.
2 Based on this estimate, there is a total lifetime fiscal drain of $746.3 billion. This assumes 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country based on the U.S. government's most recent estimate.
The fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3 billion compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1 billion, assuming a FY 2016 cost per deportation, or $67.6 billion using FY 2012 deportation costs.
Center for Immigration Studies Report
There are many more details provided in this report Deportation vs cost of letting illegal immigrants stay. The facts show by deterring the flow of illegal immigrants to begin with will be a big win by reducing the numbers and costs. A wall is a start to deter such a continuous drain on our economy.
The Centre for Immigration Studies is a political organization that conducts studies to try and achieve a pre determined conclusion.
And even if it's figures are correct ( which seems highly unlikely) it still doesn't demonstrate any evidence in favour of building the wall.
How effective is this new border wall? On Sunday, when a violent mob of 1,000 people stormed our Southern border, we found the newly constructed portions of the wall to be very effective. In the area of the breach, a group of people tore a hole in the old landing mat fence constructed decades ago and pushed across the border. U.S. Border Patrol agents who responded to the area ultimately dispersed the crowd, which had become assaultive, and apprehended several individuals. All of the individuals were either apprehended or retreated into Mexico. That evening, the fence was repaired. There were no breaches along the newly constructed border wall areas.
In FY18, Congress provided $1.375B for border wall construction which equates to approximately 84 miles of border wall in multiple locations across the Southwest border, including:
$251M for a secondary border wall in the San Diego Sector
$445M to construct a new levee wall system in the Rio Grande Valley Sector
$196M to construct a new steel bollard wall system in Rio Grande Valley Sector
$445M for a primary pedestrian wall in San Diego, El Centro, Yuma and Tucson Sectors
What’s next you might ask? When combined with the funds provided in FY 2017 and FY 2018, if funded at $5B in FY 2019 DHS expects to construct more than 330 miles of border wall in the U.S. Border Patrol’s highest priority locations across the Southwest border.
DHS is positioned to construct 215 miles of Border Patrol’s highest priority border wall miles including:
~5 miles in San Diego Sector in California
~14 miles in El Centro Sector in California
~27 miles in Yuma Sector in Arizona
~9 miles in El Paso Sector in New Mexico
~55 miles in Laredo Sector in Texas
~104 miles in Rio Grande Valley Sector in Texas
The Bottom Line: Walls Work. When it comes to stopping drugs and illegal aliens from crossing our borders, border walls have proven to be extremely effective. Border security relies on a combination of border infrastructure, technology, personnel and partnerships with law enforcement at the state, local, tribal, and federal level. For example, when we installed a border wall in the Yuma Sector, we have seen border apprehensions decrease by 90 percent. In San Diego, we saw on Sunday that dilapidated, decades-old barriers are not sufficient for today’s threat and need to be removed so new – up to 30 foot wall sections can be completed.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: CynConcepts
originally posted by: ScepticScot
That isn't really technically an opportunity cost but let's not get bogged down In semantics.
1. Is that 100b a verified net cost and if so what's the source.
2. What evidence is there that the wall will reduce immigration by sufficient to be cost effective.
3. Would alternative ways of reducing immigration be more cost effective.
4. Have you apologised to uncommitted for your post in page 1. Manners cost nothing after all (unlike the wall).
Perhaps one should review facts for themselves.
Costs of illegal immigrants: Researchers agree that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education. There is also agreement that immigrants with this level of education are a significant net fiscal drain, creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.
2 Based on this estimate, there is a total lifetime fiscal drain of $746.3 billion. This assumes 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country based on the U.S. government's most recent estimate.
The fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3 billion compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1 billion, assuming a FY 2016 cost per deportation, or $67.6 billion using FY 2012 deportation costs.
Center for Immigration Studies Report
There are many more details provided in this report Deportation vs cost of letting illegal immigrants stay. The facts show by deterring the flow of illegal immigrants to begin with will be a big win by reducing the numbers and costs. A wall is a start to deter such a continuous drain on our economy.
And even if it's figures are correct ( which seems highly unlikely) it still doesn't demonstrate any evidence in favour of building the wall.
originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: ScepticScot
Thought I hit reply to the original post. I have not read any of your comments (and don't plan to). My apologies for the confusion.
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: CynConcepts
originally posted by: ScepticScot
That isn't really technically an opportunity cost but let's not get bogged down In semantics.
1. Is that 100b a verified net cost and if so what's the source.
2. What evidence is there that the wall will reduce immigration by sufficient to be cost effective.
3. Would alternative ways of reducing immigration be more cost effective.
4. Have you apologised to uncommitted for your post in page 1. Manners cost nothing after all (unlike the wall).
Perhaps one should review facts for themselves.
Costs of illegal immigrants: Researchers agree that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education. There is also agreement that immigrants with this level of education are a significant net fiscal drain, creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.
2 Based on this estimate, there is a total lifetime fiscal drain of $746.3 billion. This assumes 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country based on the U.S. government's most recent estimate.
The fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3 billion compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1 billion, assuming a FY 2016 cost per deportation, or $67.6 billion using FY 2012 deportation costs.
Center for Immigration Studies Report
There are many more details provided in this report Deportation vs cost of letting illegal immigrants stay. The facts show by deterring the flow of illegal immigrants to begin with will be a big win by reducing the numbers and costs. A wall is a start to deter such a continuous drain on our economy.
And even if it's figures are correct ( which seems highly unlikely) it still doesn't demonstrate any evidence in favour of building the wall.
Take your blinders off. There’s a ton of “evidence” but like many here,if you can’t see past your party affiliation to see it for yourself, then it’s a waste of time trying to have a honest discussion with you about this topic. Lots of ignorance with the blind leading the blind in this thread.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: CynConcepts
originally posted by: ScepticScot
That isn't really technically an opportunity cost but let's not get bogged down In semantics.
1. Is that 100b a verified net cost and if so what's the source.
2. What evidence is there that the wall will reduce immigration by sufficient to be cost effective.
3. Would alternative ways of reducing immigration be more cost effective.
4. Have you apologised to uncommitted for your post in page 1. Manners cost nothing after all (unlike the wall).
Perhaps one should review facts for themselves.
Costs of illegal immigrants: Researchers agree that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education. There is also agreement that immigrants with this level of education are a significant net fiscal drain, creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.
2 Based on this estimate, there is a total lifetime fiscal drain of $746.3 billion. This assumes 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country based on the U.S. government's most recent estimate.
The fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3 billion compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1 billion, assuming a FY 2016 cost per deportation, or $67.6 billion using FY 2012 deportation costs.
Center for Immigration Studies Report
There are many more details provided in this report Deportation vs cost of letting illegal immigrants stay. The facts show by deterring the flow of illegal immigrants to begin with will be a big win by reducing the numbers and costs. A wall is a start to deter such a continuous drain on our economy.
And even if it's figures are correct ( which seems highly unlikely) it still doesn't demonstrate any evidence in favour of building the wall.
Take your blinders off. There’s a ton of “evidence” but like many here,if you can’t see past your party affiliation to see it for yourself, then it’s a waste of time trying to have a honest discussion with you about this topic. Lots of ignorance with the blind leading the blind in this thread.
If there was a ton of evidence I suspect it would be used here.
I don't have a party affiliation.
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: CynConcepts
originally posted by: ScepticScot
That isn't really technically an opportunity cost but let's not get bogged down In semantics.
1. Is that 100b a verified net cost and if so what's the source.
2. What evidence is there that the wall will reduce immigration by sufficient to be cost effective.
3. Would alternative ways of reducing immigration be more cost effective.
4. Have you apologised to uncommitted for your post in page 1. Manners cost nothing after all (unlike the wall).
Perhaps one should review facts for themselves.
Costs of illegal immigrants: Researchers agree that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education. There is also agreement that immigrants with this level of education are a significant net fiscal drain, creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.
2 Based on this estimate, there is a total lifetime fiscal drain of $746.3 billion. This assumes 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country based on the U.S. government's most recent estimate.
The fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3 billion compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1 billion, assuming a FY 2016 cost per deportation, or $67.6 billion using FY 2012 deportation costs.
Center for Immigration Studies Report
There are many more details provided in this report Deportation vs cost of letting illegal immigrants stay. The facts show by deterring the flow of illegal immigrants to begin with will be a big win by reducing the numbers and costs. A wall is a start to deter such a continuous drain on our economy.
And even if it's figures are correct ( which seems highly unlikely) it still doesn't demonstrate any evidence in favour of building the wall.
Take your blinders off. There’s a ton of “evidence” but like many here,if you can’t see past your party affiliation to see it for yourself, then it’s a waste of time trying to have a honest discussion with you about this topic. Lots of ignorance with the blind leading the blind in this thread.
If there was a ton of evidence I suspect it would be used here.
I don't have a party affiliation.
This has been beat to death on this forum, why repeat something thats been said over and over. Are you sure you have no horse in the race? Your post tell me differently.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: CynConcepts
originally posted by: ScepticScot
That isn't really technically an opportunity cost but let's not get bogged down In semantics.
1. Is that 100b a verified net cost and if so what's the source.
2. What evidence is there that the wall will reduce immigration by sufficient to be cost effective.
3. Would alternative ways of reducing immigration be more cost effective.
4. Have you apologised to uncommitted for your post in page 1. Manners cost nothing after all (unlike the wall).
Perhaps one should review facts for themselves.
Costs of illegal immigrants: Researchers agree that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education. There is also agreement that immigrants with this level of education are a significant net fiscal drain, creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.
2 Based on this estimate, there is a total lifetime fiscal drain of $746.3 billion. This assumes 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country based on the U.S. government's most recent estimate.
The fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3 billion compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1 billion, assuming a FY 2016 cost per deportation, or $67.6 billion using FY 2012 deportation costs.
Center for Immigration Studies Report
There are many more details provided in this report Deportation vs cost of letting illegal immigrants stay. The facts show by deterring the flow of illegal immigrants to begin with will be a big win by reducing the numbers and costs. A wall is a start to deter such a continuous drain on our economy.
And even if it's figures are correct ( which seems highly unlikely) it still doesn't demonstrate any evidence in favour of building the wall.
Take your blinders off. There’s a ton of “evidence” but like many here,if you can’t see past your party affiliation to see it for yourself, then it’s a waste of time trying to have a honest discussion with you about this topic. Lots of ignorance with the blind leading the blind in this thread.
If there was a ton of evidence I suspect it would be used here.
I don't have a party affiliation.
This has been beat to death on this forum, why repeat something thats been said over and over. Are you sure you have no horse in the race? Your post tell me differently.
Asking for evidence that that wall is actually the best solution doesn't seem an unreasonable request. Trump has been talking about it for couple of years, has there been any research?
What horse exactly do you think I would have? The single T at the end of my username might be a clue...
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Propagandalf
Not to mention it is hard to ascertain since they are likely to victimize other illegals who are less likely to report.
Regardless, there ARE criminals, we should keep them out. Not sure why anyone is for importing violent criminals.
originally posted by: Propagandalf
I hate the argument “Citizens commit more crimes than illegals”. Yes, every society has its own criminals. But no country needs to import more. What a foolish deflection.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Propagandalf
I hate the argument “Citizens commit more crimes than illegals”. Yes, every society has its own criminals. But no country needs to import more. What a foolish deflection.
Its not true as the giov numbers i posted show.
In addition, who do you think commits more crimes of stealing idenity? Oh but I guess that even though that is in many times a felony, we shouldnt look at that.
And I find these demographic stats being pushed to be facsinating because of who is pushing them.
So noow its ok to look at stats showing racial demographics of crime?
Because they seem be the loudest shouting RACISM!!!! when crime and demographics are brought up in other contexts.
originally posted by: CynConcepts
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: CynConcepts
originally posted by: ScepticScot
That isn't really technically an opportunity cost but let's not get bogged down In semantics.
1. Is that 100b a verified net cost and if so what's the source.
2. What evidence is there that the wall will reduce immigration by sufficient to be cost effective.
3. Would alternative ways of reducing immigration be more cost effective.
4. Have you apologised to uncommitted for your post in page 1. Manners cost nothing after all (unlike the wall).
Perhaps one should review facts for themselves.
Costs of illegal immigrants: Researchers agree that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly have modest levels of education — most have not completed high school or have only a high school education. There is also agreement that immigrants with this level of education are a significant net fiscal drain, creating more in costs for government than they pay in taxes.
The NAS estimated the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) of immigrants based on their educational attainment. Averaging those estimates and applying them to the education level of illegal immigrants shows a net fiscal drain of $65,292 per illegal — excluding any costs for their children.
2 Based on this estimate, there is a total lifetime fiscal drain of $746.3 billion. This assumes 11.43 million illegal immigrants are in the country based on the U.S. government's most recent estimate.
The fiscal cost created by illegal immigrants of $746.3 billion compares to total a cost of deportation of $124.1 billion, assuming a FY 2016 cost per deportation, or $67.6 billion using FY 2012 deportation costs.
Center for Immigration Studies Report
There are many more details provided in this report Deportation vs cost of letting illegal immigrants stay. The facts show by deterring the flow of illegal immigrants to begin with will be a big win by reducing the numbers and costs. A wall is a start to deter such a continuous drain on our economy.
And even if it's figures are correct ( which seems highly unlikely) it still doesn't demonstrate any evidence in favour of building the wall.
Take your blinders off. There’s a ton of “evidence” but like many here,if you can’t see past your party affiliation to see it for yourself, then it’s a waste of time trying to have a honest discussion with you about this topic. Lots of ignorance with the blind leading the blind in this thread.
If there was a ton of evidence I suspect it would be used here.
I don't have a party affiliation.
This has been beat to death on this forum, why repeat something thats been said over and over. Are you sure you have no horse in the race? Your post tell me differently.
Asking for evidence that that wall is actually the best solution doesn't seem an unreasonable request. Trump has been talking about it for couple of years, has there been any research?
What horse exactly do you think I would have? The single T at the end of my username might be a clue...
Yes, it is obvious you have a very biased opinion for many have provided you facts that a wall is an effective deterrent with facts and studies. You keep asking...but blindly ignore the facts. Perhaps, it is simply an ignorance obtained from living in a democratic society? Even so, the US is not alone in recognizing that walls deter the flow illegal immigration when manpower and geographical locations do not.