Fox News Savagely Fact Checked trumps border speech

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: 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.

Perhaps, you would be less skeptical of the latest updates from Department of Homeland Security.

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.

DHS gov news update 12/12/2018

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.

the funny thing is watching both sides quote statistics saying the others facts are just manipulated data..

I thought the entire point of statistics was about manipulating the data..

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.

At least your honest

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: 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: 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...

a reply to: iplay1up2

So they are being victimized and drugs do come over the border. He is wrong how?

a reply to: iplay1up2

Sure and just like the first here is another and I'll add no further commentary...

Fact.

“The government’s statistics show that there is less violent crime by the undocumented immigrant population than by the general population,” he said.

********
The problem with the above = No one cares what the amount is, .01% is too many from what we already have to worry about and take care of = America doesn't need MORE of what we already don't want!!! = we don't need more crime, health concerns for diseases we have already eradicated [or not], or humans sucking off the titty of government funds... Come in Legally and we wouldn't have these concerns and the Humans who will do good and assimilate to America as they should and as they have in the past..

I say Close ALL borders and let them all come in thru one port of entry = Ellis Island!! Be done with it!!

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: 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.

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: 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.

Exactly. Criminals are bad enough, but criminals without a paper trail are far worse.

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: 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.

Personally, I hate racial demographics and any stat that has to do with them. I hate the language of race, the notion of race, and the identity politics it procures—that’s all racism to me.

But we’re talking third world societies here. That has nothing to do with race.

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.

I don't recall a study showing the wall would be the most effective solution. If such a study has been linked in this thread please repost.

Otherwise do you have the manners to apologise.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm not a proponent for the wall but I have certainly seen experts say it will work.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Testimony Prepared for the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform link was provided in one of my earlier posts that you obviously ignored.

The Cost of a border wall vs cost of illegal immigrants

Can a border wall pay for itself? Testimony

Edit add: I will apologize when you provide a study that shows a wall will be most ineffective in deterring illegal immigration. You have only based your views on Opinion and not actual facts.

a reply to: uncommitted


Yes, per capita is what matters generally. I haven't looked at the methodology as far as further analysis.

However, there are ways and methods to balance that skew you are mentioning. That may have been done by the analysts.