What happened to Mexico Paying for your stupid wall! HAHAHA

IB, before taking a look at that I was sure illegal immigrants were big net contributors, in terms of taxation versus benefits. I'm not so sure now. Originally Posted by Tiny

https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-co...y-theyre-wrong

https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-co...y-theyre-wrong Originally Posted by WTF

Great article. The deplorables would never read something like that. They don't research anything that goes against their extreme radical right wing propaganda and fake news. They talk about Rachael Maddow yet have never watched a single show. All that talk of the deep state, poisonous fruit, outdated articles about Bush41 inability to read a grocery scanner and other nonsense has affected their ability to be open minded. The bottom line is Mexico punked Trump much like Putin and Kim have.

Considering these illegals cost the U.S. $54.5 billion per year, that means the U.S. taxpayer will enjoy a windfall savings of $49 billion for the first year and $54.5 billion for every year after that! So, yeah, Mexico, et al, would be paying for the wall. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I think that point is too sophisticated for them to understand.

I think they expect Mexico to have a payment ceremony for it to count.

themystic - surely you know we already have numerous walls between us and Mexico and have for years.

Trumps wall is just bigger and better. Kind of like rebuilding a highway.

We need rich immigrants, not poor ones. That's all I ask.

We need rich immigrants, not poor ones. That's all I ask. Originally Posted by friendly fred

Fred, hypothetically, what would you think of allowing poor guest workers into the USA legally? They would have to be screened for criminal records before hand and couldn't become citizens. They would pay for social security, Medicare and Medicaid but wouldn't receive benefits. In the event the U.S. unemployment rate exceeded some level, they'd have to leave. If they became unemployed they'd have to leave. When they turned 65 they'd have to leave. You'd track them with something like an ankle bracelet or implant. And while this might represent sex discrimination, they would either have to be adult males, or women over the age of 40. That would cut way back on the number of their children born in the USA who would automatically become citizens and consume educational benefits -- that's the biggest argument for illegals being a drain on the budget in the Heritage Foundation paper IB cited.

You do that and these foreign guest workers would undoubtedly contribute more than they'd consume.

This would be kind of like decriminalizing drugs. Legally, politically and morally there are problems with the idea, but if you did it, you'd end up with fewer illegal aliens and fewer societal problems. The Trumpsters should be happy because it would cut back on all those nasty murderers and rapists entering the country. And those on the left should be happy because you won't have so many illegals dying while trekking across the desert, being transported in trailer trucks, etc. And less will be working off the book for half of minimum wage.

Fred, hypothetically, what would you think of allowing poor guest workers into the USA legally? They would have to be screened for criminal records before hand and couldn't become citizens. They would pay for social security, Medicare and Medicaid but wouldn't receive benefits. In the event the U.S. unemployment rate exceeded some level, they'd have to leave. If they became unemployed they'd have to leave. When they turned 65 they'd have to leave. You'd track them with something like an ankle bracelet or implant. And while this might represent sex discrimination, they would either have to be adult males, or women over the age of 40. That would cut way back on the number of their children born in the USA who would automatically become citizens and consume educational benefits -- that's the biggest argument for illegals being a drain on the budget in the Heritage Foundation paper IB cited.

You do that and these foreign guest workers would undoubtedly contribute more than they'd consume.

This would be kind of like decriminalizing drugs. Legally, politically and morally there are problems with the idea, but if you did it, you'd end up with fewer illegal aliens and fewer societal problems. The Trumpsters should be happy because it would cut back on all those nasty murderers and rapists entering the country. And those on the left should be happy because you won't have so many illegals dying while trekking across the desert, being transported in trailer trucks, etc. And less will be working off the book for half of minimum wage. Originally Posted by Tiny

That seems reasonable, we could do that for the poor, and otherwise welcome the rich.

Well let do this anyone that does not believed in immigration reform and building the wall please send PresidentTrump your address so that he can send them to your house to take care of them. By the way you are not allowed to file for government assistance or better than that just send each one of them the $50,000 they are asking for.

Well let do this anyone that does not believed in immigration reform and building the wall please send PresidentTrump your address so that he can send them to your house to take care of them. By the way you are not allowed to file for government assistance or better than that just send each one of them the $50,000 they are asking for. Originally Posted by badass06

I didn't know that anyone granted asylum was given $50000

themystic - surely you know we already have numerous walls between us and Mexico and have for years.

Trumps wall is just bigger and better. Kind of like rebuilding a highway.

We need rich immigrants, not poor ones. That's all I ask. Originally Posted by friendly fred

Fred I agree there are already walls in place.I would not have a problem with upgrading whats already in place. Problem is the border is 2,000 miles long. Its like anything people find ways to beat the system. Like payroll taxes, campaign finances, income taxes etc. A wall isn't going to keep them out if they really want to come. Now if they made it a mandatory 3 year prison sentence to hire an undocumented worker they wouldn't be here. Our lives would change dramatically for a while

Fred I agree there are already walls in place.I would not have a problem with upgrading whats already in place. Problem is the border is 2,000 miles long. Its like anything people find ways to beat the system. Like payroll taxes, campaign finances, income taxes etc. A wall isn't going to keep them out if they really want to come. Now if they made it a mandatory 3 year prison sentence to hire an undocumented worker they wouldn't be here. Our lives would change dramatically for a while Originally Posted by themystic

I could live with that!!

themystic - surely you know we already have numerous walls between us and Mexico and have for years.

Trumps wall is just bigger and better. Kind of like rebuilding a highway.

We need rich immigrants, not poor ones. That's all I ask. Originally Posted by friendly fred

Trump's wall is like building a 6-lane highway to replace a 2-lane country road which met the demands of traffic. Not needed. Especially at a cost of AT LEAST $22 billion. Even Republicans in The House are unlikely to support any funding for the wall, even before the Democrats take over the House in January.

We do not NEED rich immigrants. Or poor immigrants. This country would do fine without any immigrants. But we are a country that has accepted those who want to emigrate here and we should, in my opinion, accept those that will be an asset to this country, whether rich or poor.

themystic - surely you know we already have numerous walls between us and Mexico and have for years.

Trumps wall is just bigger and better. Kind of like rebuilding a highway.

We need rich immigrants, not poor ones. That's all I ask. Originally Posted by friendly fred

Has he even picked out a prototype wall yet? Have they been paid for?

Trump's wall is like building a 6-lane highway to replace a 2-lane country road which met the demands of traffic. Not needed. Especially at a cost of AT LEAST $22 billion. Even Republicans in The House are unlikely to support any funding for the wall, even before the Democrats take over the House in January.

We do not NEED rich immigrants. Or poor immigrants. This country would do fine without any immigrants. But we are a country that has accepted those who want to emigrate here and we should, in my opinion, accept those that will be an asset to this country, whether rich or poor. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yes, we should have the general concept the immigrants will help our country.

The reason I argue against the poor being immigrants is that we already have more poor people here than we can adequately support, so we should bring in rich people to help us help the poor people already here.

Has he even picked out a prototype wall yet? Have they been paid for? Originally Posted by bamscram

I'm not aware of the progress of selecting the best wall nor the cost.

Protecting America from illegal immigration might very well be very costly - but we can't afford to do nothing, either.

Has he even picked out a prototype wall yet? Have they been paid for? Originally Posted by bamscram

the prototype has been picked out. apparently its a mix of the prototypes that would be useful in certain areas of the border.