Trump’s Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year

[Humorme]

War and fear, it not bombs going off in pizza joints. Your ideas lost. Take your amnesty for the two million and be happy they aren’t settling in your neighborhood.

. Yes, we live in different times, and due to the out of control attitude of the open borders crowd, who were using the situation to fuel a long term agenda in which has now since brought us to the very place in time in which we all are at now, so we have to apply remedies sufficient for the crisis.

It is a time due to the past liberalist movement coupled with the greed brought on by the corporatists movement that has created this huge crisis that has been looming over us ever since the mid 80's.

Our situation don't have squat to do with any "open borders crowd.

From the pilgrims to the signers of the Declaration of Independence all the way up to the men who signed the Constitution, they ALL favored what you want to call open borders. It's a Hell of lot better than the ultimate POLICE STATE you want to sell us.

Can you quote one of these men supporting open borders?

Don't have to. While ALL of the founders were still alive the states controlled the migration of who came and went in their state. They did not get involved in citizenship (that is a federal matter), but they had full control of who came and went within the states.

NO FOUNDING FATHER HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT.

It wasn't until EVERY founding father was dead and buried that the feds did a power grab. That happened in 1876.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Nuff said. Period. If you don’t like the laws, then take it up with law makers. You will just have to deal with that cup cake.

OMG. Here comes that deflection. It is Improper Entry. And I DO take this issue up with the lawmakers... EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT. Here is the way the United States Supreme Court says I can handle the matter:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Next....

 

[Liquid Reigns]

OMG. Here comes that deflection. It is Improper Entry. And I DO take this issue up with the lawmakers... EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT. Here is the way the United States Supreme Court says I can handle the matter:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Next....

SMFH That is what SCOTUS says of a law that they find unconstitutional. That law may stay on the books yet is not enforceable. You don't get to decide if the law is unconstitutional or not. If you think a law is unconstitutional then you can challenge it, as long as you have standing, otherwise you are bound to following that law.

So what immigration law is it that you think is unconstitutional? What immigration law is it you think effects you?

 

[beagle9]

Trump is already working on it, and I support him.

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

I definitely don't agree with that.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Commerce Clause. Real times of Commerce benefit from a low tax climate.

Real times of War, require real times of War, Tax Rates.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

 

[mudwhistle]

We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.

Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​

President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.

The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.

The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.

They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.

They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.

How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.
The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?

We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost $15 billion at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.

However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost $21.6 billion, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build. This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.

On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion. Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).

Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.

. . . . . . . .​

Send all of those illegals back home and make Mexico pay for it.

 

[danielpalos]

We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.

Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​

President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.

The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.

The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.

They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.

They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.

How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.
The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?

We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost $15 billion at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.

However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost $21.6 billion, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build. This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.

On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion. Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).

Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.

. . . . . . . .​

Send all of those illegals back home and make Mexico pay for it.

too much socialism on a national basis. We have a Commerce Clause.

Every foreign national should have a federal id, in the US.

 

[dblack]

It's funny how gasbag conservatives makes lots of noise about limited government and protecting individual rights - until they get scared. Then they're big time statists.

 

[danielpalos]

It's funny how gasbag conservatives makes lots of noise about limited government and protecting individual rights - until they get scared. Then they're big time statists.

all political talk and no political action. that is why some on the left don't take the right wing seriously about politics.

 

[Humorme]

Trump is a closet Democrat working on an idea that won't pass constitutional muster. Y'all can blame the courts in a few years.

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

 

[Humorme]

We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.

Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​

President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.

The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.

The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.

They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.

They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.

How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.
The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?

We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost $15 billion at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.

However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost $21.6 billion, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build. This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.

On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion. Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).

Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.

. . . . . . . .​

Send all of those illegals back home and make Mexico pay for it.

Just out of curiosity: Since the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, how do you feel about sending all the blacks back to Africa?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

And yet the Chy Lung case that you like to cite says the states don't have that ability. The states can hold no exterior relations with foreign nations. SHRUG

 

[danielpalos]

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

not with gun lovers in the State and a Second Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

It's funny how gasbag conservatives makes lots of noise about limited government and protecting individual rights - until they get scared. Then they're big time statists.

What "individual rights" are they threatening? What "big government" are they proposing?

 

[bripat9643]

How is it unonstitutional? The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the authority to set our immigration policy. It doesn't set restrictions on what Congress can do in that regard.

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

It sure as hell does. Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.

 

[Humorme]

It's funny how gasbag conservatives makes lots of noise about limited government and protecting individual rights - until they get scared. Then they're big time statists.

What "individual rights" are they threatening? What "big government" are they proposing?

The anti - immigrant lobby is responsible for:

* The so - called "Patriot Act"

* National ID / REAL ID Act

* National Defense Authorization Act

* Repeal of the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty

* The expansion of the IRS via the ridiculous SSN requirement on National ID Cards

* The assaults on private property Rights

* The advocacy of building up the largest POLICE STATE in recorded history... and all over so - called "illegal immigration"

* The creation of the Department of Homeland (IN) Security... much like Russia's Motherland and Nazi Germany's Fatherland

* The creation of the Constitution Free Zone

* Advocating Socialism in the private business sector while promoting the same, exact kinds of laws that resulted in hiring schemes like affirmative action, racial quotas, and preferential hiring ploys.

That's just the top ten. When you have given support to the expansion of the 14th Amendment, which was illegally ratified, it says liberalism in a language that the Democrats cannot begin to compete with.

In all, your side has wasted TRILLIONS of tax dollars; effectively repealed the Fourth Amendment; built the world's most oppressive Militiary / Police force with no regard for boundaries and the separation of powers. And you want to ask that question... You really didn't know?

 

[RealDave]

We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.

Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​

President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.

The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.

The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.

They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.

They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.

How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.
The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?

We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost $15 billion at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.

However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost $21.6 billion, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build. This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.

On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion. Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).

Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.

. . . . . . . .​

So, you think this wall, will stop all illegal immigration. Wow, you are one dumb fuck.

 

[Humorme]

At the expense of being trolled to death, the bottom line is that Congress has ONE function relative to people coming into the United States:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution

You will have to join someone like danielpalos and use the Commerce Clause (which ultimately makes the Supreme Court the primary legislative branch) in order to take your disagreement further.

The federal government has NO de jure authority to tell the states who they may and may not invite into their states as guests.

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

It sure as hell does. Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.

And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?

If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?

Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin? He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived. He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.

 

[bripat9643]

We've all heard the snowflake lies about the cost of the wall and the cost of illegal immigration. Here's a more credible examination of the facts.

Trump's Wall Costs $21.6 Billion; Illegal Immigration Costs $148.3 Billion Per Year—Do The Math | National Economics Editorial​

President Donald Trump announced that he will fulfill his campaign promise to build a nearly 2,000 mile long wall (not a fence) along America’s southern border with Mexico.

The idea is that a physical barrier will act as a low-cost deterrent, and will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants entering America via Mexico—the hope is that once an illegal alien (particularly a criminal migrant) is deported, they won’t return.

The plan is simple and time-tested—China’s Great Wall did it’s job, so did Hadrian’s Wall in Roman Britain—and yet it’s come under fire from the mainstream media.

They claim that the wall will be prohibitively expensive, that illegal immigrants contribute to America’s economy (so there’s no reason to deport them), and that the wall won’t work.

They’re factually wrong on all accounts—let’s look at the numbers.

How Much Will Trump’s Wall Cost? $21.6 Billion.
The first question we must address is very straightforward: how much would it cost to build a wall along the Mexican border?

We don’t know for sure (construction costs rarely align with initial estimates), but we have a few good estimates.

Senate leader Mitch McConnell said Congress estimates the wall will cost $15 billion at most—he said it would likely fall within a range of $12 to $15 billion.

However, according to more recent information acquired by Reuters, the border wall will cost $21.6 billion, and will take roughly 3.5 years to build. This is according to a document from the Department of Homeland Security.

It’s probably our best current estimate, and this article will proceed under using this cost assumption.

On the high end (which can’t be totally discounted, given the nature of construction projects), the left-wing advocacy group cum “newspaper” the Huffington Post said the wall would cost roughly $40 billion. Their evidence is based on a study done by MIT (although their assumptions about the size and building materials may be why the projection is so high).

Either way, the cost of the wall pales in comparison to the cost of illegal immigrants in America.

. . . . . . . .​

So, you think this wall, will stop all illegal immigration. Wow, you are one dumb fuck.

Every security expert thinks the same thing, dumbass. They tell their clients to build walls and install chain link fences.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes it does. You just quoted the text that gives Congress the authority. Apperently you have a problem with reading comprehension.

You challenging me is idiotic at best. Did you graduate the third grade?

Where do you see the words that Congress can tell states who they can invite in as guests?

. If the states do things in which threaten the entire union, the federal law trumps the states will to do things in which places the entire union at risk. The civil war was fought for these very reasons in which states decided to place the union at risk over the attempt to break up the union.

Inviting guests into your state does not endanger the nation.

It sure as hell does. Any "guest" invited into your state can then go to any other state in the union.

And if that state does not afford that individual anything, what difference does it make?

If the state of Tennessee were to outlaw firearms, should they put a wall up around that state because Georgia did not outlaw firearms?

Did you ever hear of a guy named Benjamin Franklin? He was, most likely, the smartest American that ever lived. He once stated that he who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety, deserves neither Liberty nor Safety.

He probably said that because once you do give up Liberty, you end with neither Liberty nor Safety either way.

Tennesee can't outlaw firearms. That would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the bottom line: The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal governent is responsible for controlling immigration. As such, that means we need to build the fucking wall.