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

[lennypartiv]

Crossing a border is not an inherent criminal activity.
We have the statue of Liberty to prove it has a long standing tradition as being appropriate behavior.
And people do have a natural right to migrate to where life is safer.
Humans are nomadic in historical reference, and the US is now populated by Europeans who all immigrated.

You liberals just don't get it. We became a great county when Europeans immigrated to America. What's happening now is bringing America down.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

​

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.
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.
​

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

. . . . . . . .

Of course, a Repug dimwit like you misses the fundamental point....this $21.6 billion wall will do very little to prevent illegal immigration, especially when the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not cross the Mexican border.

Even more important is that immigrants pay taxes and actually are a huge net gain.
Or at least they would be if we let them work instead of spending money locking them up.
It is our foolish actions that make immigrants cost anything.

 

[P@triot]

there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

You really are the worst troll I have ever come across. You’re so bad at it.

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

That would be Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

Crossing a border is not an inherent criminal activity.
We have the statue of Liberty to prove it has a long standing tradition as being appropriate behavior.
And people do have a natural right to migrate to where life is safer.
Humans are nomadic in historical reference, and the US is now populated by Europeans who all immigrated.

You liberals just don't get it. We became a great county when Europeans immigrated to America. What's happening now is bringing America down.

Not really.
The European who immigrated brought genocide, disease, war, crime, weapons, mercenaries, scalping, slavery, longer work hours, less freedom, more corruption, over population, global warming, etc.
Actually, before the European illegal immigration and genocide, North America was pretty much a paradise.
We ruined it.

 

[danielpalos]

Crossing a border is not an inherent criminal activity.
We have the statue of Liberty to prove it has a long standing tradition as being appropriate behavior.
And people do have a natural right to migrate to where life is safer.
Humans are nomadic in historical reference, and the US is now populated by Europeans who all immigrated.

You liberals just don't get it. We became a great county when Europeans immigrated to America. What's happening now is bringing America down.

nothing but right wing bigotry. y'all only allege to care about natural rights in abortion threads.

 

[danielpalos]

there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

You really are the worst troll I have ever come across. You’re so bad at it.

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

That would be Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

naturalization is not immigration. why not become less ignorant, right wingers.

 

[Rigby5]

there is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

You really are the worst troll I have ever come across. You’re so bad at it.

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

That would be Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Technically that is referring to the rules of how one has to follow rules in order to become a citizen, and does not really have anything at all to do with immigration.
I assume there likely is some clause, but that is still not it yet.

 

[otto105]

4 myths about how immigrants affect the U.S. economy

 

[Rigby5]

I did run into this argument about immigration.

{...
Immigration

The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.
...}
https://usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

I have also read this argument, although I do not see immigrants as an invasion.

{...
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
...}
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - Immivasion - Immigration Invasion

 

[danielpalos]

I did run into this argument about immigration.

{...
Immigration

The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.
...}
https://usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

I have also read this argument, although I do not see immigrants as an invasion.

{...
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
...}
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - Immivasion - Immigration Invasion

States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.

 

[Rigby5]

4 myths about how immigrants affect the U.S. economy

I agree.
Immigrants are a net gain, they commit fewer crimes, pay more in taxes than they cost, and are a huge boost to the economy, both by being more productive at lower costs, and by buying more products and services locally.

 

[Rigby5]

I did run into this argument about immigration.

{...
Immigration

The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.
...}
https://usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

I have also read this argument, although I do not see immigrants as an invasion.

{...
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
...}
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - Immivasion - Immigration Invasion

States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.

That does not necessarily mean the US govenment has any authority over immigration either.
For example, what if someone in some state wanted to start up some business that needed some skill that was not available in the US. I see no legal means of preventing him from importing those skills, as long as it is not an invasion. States may not have authority over entry into the Union since 1808, but in 1808 there also were zero federal restriction on any sort of immigration at all.
I seem to remember that the first federal immigration restrictions were more like 1920 or so?
But I am not sure, since it seems they sent the Chinese rail workers back, and were often attacking Hispanics in the southwest.

 

[danielpalos]

I did run into this argument about immigration.

{...
Immigration

The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.

There is also an argument that immigration is an implied power of any sovereign nation, and as such, the federal government has the power to regulate immigration because the United States is a sovereign nation. While it is true that the United States is a sovereign nation, and it may be true that all sovereign nations have some powers inherent in that status, it is not necessary to determine if immigration is such a power that does not even require constitutional mention, because the Naturalization Clause handles the power.
Thanks to Jason Potkanski for the idea, and Stephen Lush for some clarification.
...}
https://usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

I have also read this argument, although I do not see immigrants as an invasion.

{...
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
...}
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution - Immivasion - Immigration Invasion

States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.

That does not necessarily mean the US govenment has any authority over immigration either.
For example, what if someone in some state wanted to start up some business that needed some skill that was not available in the US. I see no legal means of preventing him from importing those skills, as long as it is not an invasion. States may not have authority over entry into the Union since 1808, but in 1808 there also were zero federal restriction on any sort of immigration at all.
I seem to remember that the first federal immigration restrictions were more like 1920 or so?
But I am not sure, since it seems they sent the Chinese rail workers back, and were often attacking Hispanics in the southwest.

you miss the point. there is no immigration clause. the express power is an establishment clause for naturalization every time the right wing has nothing but bigotry for their reasons.

 

[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.

​

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.
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.
​

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

. . . . . . . .

Of course, a Repug dimwit like you misses the fundamental point....this $21.6 billion wall will do very little to prevent illegal immigration, especially when the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not cross the Mexican border.

Two lies in one sentence. The empirical evidence shows that walls work.

 

[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.

​

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.
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.
​

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

. . . . . . . .

Of course, a Repug dimwit like you misses the fundamental point....this $21.6 billion wall will do very little to prevent illegal immigration, especially when the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not cross the Mexican border.

Even more important is that immigrants pay taxes and actually are a huge net gain.
Or at least they would be if we let them work instead of spending money locking them up.
It is our foolish actions that make immigrants cost anything.

How are they a gain to the guy whose job they took?

 

[Mortis]

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

The Wall will pay for itself in time. It will be worth every penny.

 

[Terri4Trump]

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

The supreme court just gave Trump a win:


Pelosi, Schumer reel as Supreme Court sides with Trump on $2.5B border plan
> Democrats dub Supreme Court's border wall ruling 'regrettable' and 'nonsensical'

 

[Terri4Trump]

......people who think a wall is a good idea.......

Tear down the fence around your house if you think they are a bad idea, you shithead hypocrite.

Assuming you own a house that is, lazy ****

 

[Mortis]

The supreme court just gave Trump a win:

That's awesome! I love when Trump wins! Because, America is also winning!

 

[Terri4Trump]

Enjoy: Hashtag BuildTheWall