Trump and His Wall

[AZRaiderH8r]

Regarding illegal immigration, this baffles me. When you compare the cost to the U.S. from illegal immigration to the benefit, the U.S. receives far more than it pays. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most forms of entitlements - President Clinton closed that door with his program on welfare reform, on which he campaigned. While a few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means, the overwhelming majority do not - they keep their heads down, do their jobs, send most of their earnings to family back in Mexico, and try to avoid at all costs any behaviors that would draw the attention of the government or law enforcement. For those who have babies born in the U.S., and remain, those children adapt the culture and language of the U.S. They do work that almost no Americans will do. They give more to the economy than they take. They almost never commit crimes. They want their children to acclimate the culture, do well in school, and become good citizens. And we want to keep them out...why?

 

Very interesting perspective AR, and I appreciate your thoughts. The subject of the wall is very interesting to me, and if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate here for the sake of some healthy discussion, I feel like these thoughts are a bit short-sighted. Yes, there are certainly an abundance of Mexican citizens who come to this country to work hard, send money back to their families, and to do the jobs that many others will not. But, to say that a "few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means" is really minimizing the impact that those individuals have. I wish that it were only a few, but that's not the case. Also, the statement that the children adapt to the US culture and language is partially true, but there are a lot of examples of that not being the case. The number of ESL classes that we have here in the SW would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm always interested in the perspective of others, especially those who do not live in border states. Here in Arizona, we have a fairly terrible reputation (a lot of it deserved) about our perceived racism towards Mexican citizens. However, living here definitely provides a different perspective on illegal immigration than those who do not live here will usually have. We have some very serious issues and challenges in this state due to illegal immigration, challenges that I don't believe that a giant wall will necessarily help. But, to state that the issues are few really does not seem accurate to me.

 

Again AR, not attacking your perspective. Your statements are always intelligent and well presented, and I appreciate that. I just thought I'd provide some contrary thoughts and opinions in the effort for good, healthy debate.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Regarding illegal immigration, this baffles me. When you compare the cost to the U.S. from illegal immigration to the benefit, the U.S. receives far more than it pays. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most forms of entitlements - President Clinton closed that door with his program on welfare reform, on which he campaigned. While a few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means, the overwhelming majority do not - they keep their heads down, do their jobs, send most of their earnings to family back in Mexico, and try to avoid at all costs any behaviors that would draw the attention of the government or law enforcement. For those who have babies born in the U.S., and remain, those children adapt the culture and language of the U.S. They do work that almost no Americans will do. They give more to the economy than they take. They almost never commit crimes. They want their children to acclimate the culture, do well in school, and become good citizens. And we want to keep them out...why?

 

Very interesting perspective AR, and I appreciate your thoughts. The subject of the wall is very interesting to me, and if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate here for the sake of some healthy discussion, I feel like these thoughts are a bit short-sighted. Yes, there are certainly an abundance of Mexican citizens who come to this country to work hard, send money back to their families, and to do the jobs that many others will not. But, to say that a "few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means" is really minimizing the impact that those individuals have. I wish that it were only a few, but that's not the case. Also, the statement that the children adapt to the US culture and language is partially true, but there are a lot of examples of that not being the case. The number of ESL classes that we have here in the SW would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm always interested in the perspective of others, especially those who do not live in border states. Here in Arizona, we have a fairly terrible reputation (a lot of it deserved) about our perceived racism towards Mexican citizens. However, living here definitely provides a different perspective on illegal immigration than those who do not live here will usually have. We have some very serious issues and challenges in this state due to illegal immigration, challenges that I don't believe that a giant wall will necessarily help. But, to state that the issues are few really does not seem accurate to me.

 

Again AR, not attacking your perspective. Your statements are always intelligent and well presented, and I appreciate that. I just thought I'd provide some contrary thoughts and opinions in the effort for good, healthy debate.

 

To the bolded:

 

Can you please explain how the number of ESL classes indicates that the children are not adapting to US culture and language?

[Oade]

 

Regarding illegal immigration, this baffles me. When you compare the cost to the U.S. from illegal immigration to the benefit, the U.S. receives far more than it pays. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most forms of entitlements - President Clinton closed that door with his program on welfare reform, on which he campaigned. While a few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means, the overwhelming majority do not - they keep their heads down, do their jobs, send most of their earnings to family back in Mexico, and try to avoid at all costs any behaviors that would draw the attention of the government or law enforcement. For those who have babies born in the U.S., and remain, those children adapt the culture and language of the U.S. They do work that almost no Americans will do. They give more to the economy than they take. They almost never commit crimes. They want their children to acclimate the culture, do well in school, and become good citizens. And we want to keep them out...why?

 

Very interesting perspective AR, and I appreciate your thoughts. The subject of the wall is very interesting to me, and if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate here for the sake of some healthy discussion, I feel like these thoughts are a bit short-sighted. Yes, there are certainly an abundance of Mexican citizens who come to this country to work hard, send money back to their families, and to do the jobs that many others will not. But, to say that a "few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means" is really minimizing the impact that those individuals have. I wish that it were only a few, but that's not the case. Also, the statement that the children adapt to the US culture and language is partially true, but there are a lot of examples of that not being the case. The number of ESL classes that we have here in the SW would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm always interested in the perspective of others, especially those who do not live in border states. Here in Arizona, we have a fairly terrible reputation (a lot of it deserved) about our perceived racism towards Mexican citizens. However, living here definitely provides a different perspective on illegal immigration than those who do not live here will usually have. We have some very serious issues and challenges in this state due to illegal immigration, challenges that I don't believe that a giant wall will necessarily help. But, to state that the issues are few really does not seem accurate to me.

 

Again AR, not attacking your perspective. Your statements are always intelligent and well presented, and I appreciate that. I just thought I'd provide some contrary thoughts and opinions in the effort for good, healthy debate.

 

 

 

I feel the same way about people's opinions from the boarder-states. I would love to have a better understanding of how citizens (not politicians) of those boarder states really feel... It just seems logical that residents of Texas, NM, Ariz, and California (and gulf coast) would have the best ideas for solutions, and should be the driving force of any changes.

 

For me, or anyone who's not directly involved or effected, to say that a wall is the best idea or the worst idea, or that this idea or that idea or whatever is the right action, is a bit outlandish from my seat here in Omaha. I personally can see the potential-benefit that a wall or military presence would have, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it is the best or only solution. I feel like a lot of people are at a loss for good ideas on the issue, but would still like to see improvements made, and to that point, the idea of a wall is easy to grasp onto.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Why won't the wall help? I mean it is a depressing option, and clearly won't solve the entire issue, but it's not going to make it easier to illegally cross the boarder is it?

 

What is a better option to address illegal immigration - and hopefully curtail drug and sex trafficking?

 

Obviously better policies are needed to allow legal access. Also better mexican involvement/commitment is needed on several fronts as well. But it seems well past time that significant diplomatic changes were made by both sides, so it just seems like half-assing it to continue with nothing more than the status quo.

 

 

In my mind the best option would be to have a few permanent military bases along the boarder with regular military patrol. If the drug cartels haven't be stopped by regular police and immigration police by now, then I doubt they ever will. - I would love if the military was in charge of patrolling shipping docks as well.

 

Without looking it up, I'd guess that 85% of this countries human and drug trafficking problems go through the ports and Mexican boarder, and in my mind the military is the only current entity that has the man power and budget to police either. That obviously creates some conflicts of interest, and wouldn't solve the entire issue, but if we seriously hope to fix those issues, then I just can't think of a better option.

 

In a prefect world the budget for the Mexico wall would come from the military budget as well. I mean they did build a $40 billion aircraft carrier last year, and we're not exactly at war (or that we didn't already have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined).

It just seems to me like they have some money that could be spent more appropriately.

The wall is based on the assumption that:

1. a significant portion of the illegal immigrants, drugs, sex trafficers, etc. cross the Mexican-US border
2. the wall would stop these crossings (as opposed to they get through the gates/checkpoints)
3. the people crossing wouldn't go around the wall (the US Gulf coast is 1631 miles long and the Pacific coast of the continental US is 2043 miles)

Drug trafficking already uses boats, not sure about the others, but if the wall makes land crossing difficult, then getting to the US by sea will become more common. And note that Trump's "wall" is composed of wall and fencing. How easy will it be to just cut through the wall? Minutes? An hour for reinforced concrete? Or do you using explosives to demolish parts of the wall if you're the cartel, for instance?

 

And do we really want the military involved in civilian affairs? There is tons of legal crossing of the border. The military isn't designed for that.

 

And the cost to build the wall is only part of the total cost, which includes maintaining the wall would cost at least $750 million/year. (And the $40 billion is for the entire Ford-class next generation aircraft carrier program. The first carrier will cost $13 billion.)

 

 

 

I agree that a wall doesn't fix the entire problem.

 

The US military has been involved in civilian disputes/affairs and boarder-patrols for decades, just not on US soil. Further more the entire purpose of having a military is to secure the boarders of our own country. What is the purpose of a military if not to maintain the legitimacy and security of our own boarders?

 

At what point should the US military get involved in US boarder disputes/violence?

 

Thanks for the link on the Aircraft Carriers, good to know! I was confused, and thought they had plans for several $40b ships.... However that still doesn't undo my opinion that the military is likely the only entity that has the budget and man-power to guard our boarders.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

The United States Army serves as the land-based branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. Section 3062 of Title 10 US Code defines the purpose of the army as:

• Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States
• Supporting the national policies
• Implementing the national objectives
• Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States

So you could make the claim that securing the borders is part of the mission of the military even though it is not explicitly stated.

 

However, the US military is designed to attack an enemy. Think about the infantry guys/gals who have had training to shoot and kill the enemy - that's their main job. Now you want them to inspect, question, detain, arrest, etc. people crossing the border. That's a different skill set and training. I mean, that's what CBP is supposed to be trained to do, right? And I'd bet a lot of them are former military, so why not just train the CBP better or hire more of them?

 

As for when I'd use the military to protect the borders, use them when we want to attack an opposing force. Like if the cartels were assaulting the CBP or others along the border. Or as a temporary armed force to assist the CBP due to some extreme condition, such as we get intelligence of a suspected attack against a border post. Then you have the military positioned to assist the CBP if the attack occurs, but the CBP is still taking the lead on border crossings and such. A similar thing happened after 9/11 where military personnel were stationed in airports, but they were there just in case and the security guards still did the passenger checks.

 

EDIT: FYI, it's border not boarder. Not trying to be a d1ck; my inner grammar Nazi just wouldn't let it go.

[Oade]

 

 

 

Why won't the wall help? I mean it is a depressing option, and clearly won't solve the entire issue, but it's not going to make it easier to illegally cross the boarder is it?

 

What is a better option to address illegal immigration - and hopefully curtail drug and sex trafficking?

 

Obviously better policies are needed to allow legal access. Also better mexican involvement/commitment is needed on several fronts as well. But it seems well past time that significant diplomatic changes were made by both sides, so it just seems like half-assing it to continue with nothing more than the status quo.

 

 

In my mind the best option would be to have a few permanent military bases along the boarder with regular military patrol. If the drug cartels haven't be stopped by regular police and immigration police by now, then I doubt they ever will. - I would love if the military was in charge of patrolling shipping docks as well.

 

Without looking it up, I'd guess that 85% of this countries human and drug trafficking problems go through the ports and Mexican boarder, and in my mind the military is the only current entity that has the man power and budget to police either. That obviously creates some conflicts of interest, and wouldn't solve the entire issue, but if we seriously hope to fix those issues, then I just can't think of a better option.

 

In a prefect world the budget for the Mexico wall would come from the military budget as well. I mean they did build a $40 billion aircraft carrier last year, and we're not exactly at war (or that we didn't already have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined).

It just seems to me like they have some money that could be spent more appropriately.

The wall is based on the assumption that:

1. a significant portion of the illegal immigrants, drugs, sex trafficers, etc. cross the Mexican-US border
2. the wall would stop these crossings (as opposed to they get through the gates/checkpoints)
3. the people crossing wouldn't go around the wall (the US Gulf coast is 1631 miles long and the Pacific coast of the continental US is 2043 miles)

Drug trafficking already uses boats, not sure about the others, but if the wall makes land crossing difficult, then getting to the US by sea will become more common. And note that Trump's "wall" is composed of wall and fencing. How easy will it be to just cut through the wall? Minutes? An hour for reinforced concrete? Or do you using explosives to demolish parts of the wall if you're the cartel, for instance?

 

And do we really want the military involved in civilian affairs? There is tons of legal crossing of the border. The military isn't designed for that.

 

And the cost to build the wall is only part of the total cost, which includes maintaining the wall would cost at least $750 million/year. (And the $40 billion is for the entire Ford-class next generation aircraft carrier program. The first carrier will cost $13 billion.)

 

 

 

I agree that a wall doesn't fix the entire problem.

 

The US military has been involved in civilian disputes/affairs and boarder-patrols for decades, just not on US soil. Further more the entire purpose of having a military is to secure the boarders of our own country. What is the purpose of a military if not to maintain the legitimacy and security of our own boarders?

 

At what point should the US military get involved in US boarder disputes/violence?

 

Thanks for the link on the Aircraft Carriers, good to know! I was confused, and thought they had plans for several $40b ships.... However that still doesn't undo my opinion that the military is likely the only entity that has the budget and man-power to guard our boarders.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

The United States Army serves as the land-based branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. Section 3062 of Title 10 US Code defines the purpose of the army as:

• Preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States
• Supporting the national policies
• Implementing the national objectives
• Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States

So you could make the claim that securing the borders is part of the mission of the military even though it is not explicitly stated.

 

However, the US military is designed to attack an enemy. Think about the infantry guys/gals who have had training to shoot and kill the enemy - that's their main job. Now you want them to inspect, question, detain, arrest, etc. people crossing the border. That's a different skill set and training. I mean, that's what CBP is supposed to be trained to do, right? And I'd bet a lot of them are former military, so why not just train the CBP better or hire more of them?

 

As for when I'd use the military to protect the borders, use them when we want to attack an opposing force. Like if the cartels were assaulting the CBP or others along the border. Or as a temporary armed force to assist the CBP due to some extreme condition, such as we get intelligence of a suspected attack against a border post. Then you have the military positioned to assist the CBP if the attack occurs, but the CBP is still taking the lead on border crossings and such. A similar thing happened after 9/11 where military personnel were stationed in airports, but they were there just in case and the security guards still did the passenger checks.

 

EDIT: FYI, it's border not boarder. Not trying to be a d1ck; my inner grammar Nazi just wouldn't let it go.

 

 

The bolded part is where my argument for using branches of the military stems from. We wouldn't need to hire anyone, we already have the man-power and the budget, it would just need reallocated. Sure there would be a level of training needed, but I don't see how that would be any different than (re)training for jungle warfare, urban, trench, air, gas, or whatever other sort of warfare/policing the military has trained for over the years... In my mind that would be a better use of our military budget, a better service to America, and help solve a current American issue, than to build a new aircraft carrier or maintain our presence in Germany or the UK or any other independent/peaceful country.

 

A Temporary policy would definitely be more desirable than not. If the issue can be better solved, then yeah, we certainly wouldn't need or want the military policing ports and borders. But at this point those things are still (mostly) unaddressed and on-going issues, seemingly with no end in sight. Maybe a military presence could be more effective.

[Oade]

Your post is somewhat contradictory. On one hand, you ask if there is a better option to address "hopefully...drug...trafficking". But then you also state, "If the drug cartels haven't been stopped by regular police and immigration police, then I doubt they ever will...".

 

I just re-read your post, and wanted to clarify.

 

When I said "If the drug cartels haven't been stopped by regular police and immigration police, then I doubt they ever will...", I meant that in terms of the current policies..... If its not working the way it is now, then it likely never will work this way..... Which is why new idea's should be explored.

[knapplc]

If we're going to spend billions on a wall, shouldn't we have a crystal-clear understanding that we're going to reap billions more in benefits from the wall?

 

What's the point of building an expensive wall that hurts America? Just to keep the Brown people out?

 

There's a strong case to be made that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to America, both economically and socially.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

 

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788

 

Trump's wall is being touted as a solution to a problem. But what's the problem?

[AZRaiderH8r]

 

 

Regarding illegal immigration, this baffles me. When you compare the cost to the U.S. from illegal immigration to the benefit, the U.S. receives far more than it pays. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most forms of entitlements - President Clinton closed that door with his program on welfare reform, on which he campaigned. While a few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means, the overwhelming majority do not - they keep their heads down, do their jobs, send most of their earnings to family back in Mexico, and try to avoid at all costs any behaviors that would draw the attention of the government or law enforcement. For those who have babies born in the U.S., and remain, those children adapt the culture and language of the U.S. They do work that almost no Americans will do. They give more to the economy than they take. They almost never commit crimes. They want their children to acclimate the culture, do well in school, and become good citizens. And we want to keep them out...why?

 

Very interesting perspective AR, and I appreciate your thoughts. The subject of the wall is very interesting to me, and if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate here for the sake of some healthy discussion, I feel like these thoughts are a bit short-sighted. Yes, there are certainly an abundance of Mexican citizens who come to this country to work hard, send money back to their families, and to do the jobs that many others will not. But, to say that a "few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means" is really minimizing the impact that those individuals have. I wish that it were only a few, but that's not the case. Also, the statement that the children adapt to the US culture and language is partially true, but there are a lot of examples of that not being the case. The number of ESL classes that we have here in the SW would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm always interested in the perspective of others, especially those who do not live in border states. Here in Arizona, we have a fairly terrible reputation (a lot of it deserved) about our perceived racism towards Mexican citizens. However, living here definitely provides a different perspective on illegal immigration than those who do not live here will usually have. We have some very serious issues and challenges in this state due to illegal immigration, challenges that I don't believe that a giant wall will necessarily help. But, to state that the issues are few really does not seem accurate to me.

 

Again AR, not attacking your perspective. Your statements are always intelligent and well presented, and I appreciate that. I just thought I'd provide some contrary thoughts and opinions in the effort for good, healthy debate.

 

To the bolded:

 

Can you please explain how the number of ESL classes indicates that the children are not adapting to US culture and language?

 

I'll see what research I can find, but this is really from my personal experience of going to high school in southern California and raising kids here in Arizona. From our experience, there was absolutely no effort made in ESL classes to adapt to US culture, language, etc. Classes were taught entirely in Spanish, the curriculum was even changed to reflect Mexican culture and history. I'm not sure how this is showing any effort to make those adaptations.

 

Again, just my opinion based on personal experience. To be fair, I've also had the opportunity to meet many Mexican families who have done an amazing job adapting to the US culture. So, it's really a matter of how much emphasis the parents put on it.

[Cdog923]

Self Edit

 

[Oade]

If we're going to spend billions on a wall, shouldn't we have a crystal-clear understanding that we're going to reap billions more in benefits from the wall?

 

What's the point of building an expensive wall that hurts America? Just to keep the Brown people out?

 

There's a strong case to be made that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to America, both economically and socially.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

 

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788

 

Trump's wall is being touted as a solution to a problem. But what's the problem?

 

 

In terms of immigrants, between 1998 and 2014, over 6,000 died in the process of crossing the border illegally - from a multitude of logistical reasons, mainly over-exposure. That's one problem that should be addressed.... Over double the number of Mexican citizens have died in the past decade illegally crossing the border, than the number of people that died on 9/11, but oh well, its a benefit to the economy. And that's not accounting the numbers killed by the cartels, who are funded by their US activities.

 

If a wall forces people to think twice before even setting off to cross illegally, then that is a good thing. Or if more of a police or military presence at the border would enable better medical aid to those migrants upon reaching the border, then that's a good thing. If there is a better option, I'm sure it would gain traction.

 

If people aren't capable of getting in legally because of some miscommunication or immigration-processing issue, or costs, or whatever, then the process needs to be improved to better work with those seeking entry into the US. That's something the US and Mexico should be working on continually.

 

If people aren't able to enter because of expected/suspected criminal activity, then I guess that's up for debate. If the criminal activity is real, then I have little sympathy. If the criminal activity is unwarranted, then that's unfair and should be addressed appropriately.

 

 

In terms of social/local issues, someone from a border state would know more than me. But I just have doubts that having illegals is better than having legal immigrants... If it is better, then maybe we should all just work toward becoming illegal citizens.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

This wall discussion is following the same bad model we saw in the immigration ban discussion.

 

We have policy which is supposed to come from top leadership. We develop procedures and tactics in support of that policy. HOW does building this wall improve our immigration policy or our ability to manage immigration?

 

I believe we need wide-scale immigration reform but I cannot see how the wall contributes to this, especially when WH has not articulated a formal policy. Is it the belief that a larger barrier = more safety? The Mongols breached the Great Wall of China several hundred years ago and I don't see our wall being more formidable...

 

As others have asked, what is the problem we are addressing and how does the wall do that?

[zoogs]

The creation of and conflict with enemies keeps the people occupied and the ambitious in power.

[knapplc]

 

If we're going to spend billions on a wall, shouldn't we have a crystal-clear understanding that we're going to reap billions more in benefits from the wall?

 

What's the point of building an expensive wall that hurts America? Just to keep the Brown people out?

 

There's a strong case to be made that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to America, both economically and socially.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

 

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788

 

Trump's wall is being touted as a solution to a problem. But what's the problem?

 

 

In terms of immigrants, between 1998 and 2014, over 6,000 died in the process of crossing the border illegally - from a multitude of logistical reasons, mainly over-exposure. That's one problem that should be addressed.... Over double the number of Mexican citizens have died in the past decade illegally crossing the border, than the number of people that died on 9/11, but oh well, its a benefit to the economy. And that's not accounting the numbers killed by the cartels, who are funded by their US activities.

 

If a wall forces people to think twice before even setting off to cross illegally, then that is a good thing. Or if more of a police or military presence at the border would enable better medical aid to those migrants upon reaching the border, then that's a good thing. If there is a better option, I'm sure it would gain traction.

 

If people aren't capable of getting in legally because of some miscommunication or immigration-processing issue, or costs, or whatever, then the process needs to be improved to better work with those seeking entry into the US. That's something the US and Mexico should be working on continually.

 

If people aren't able to enter because of expected/suspected criminal activity, then I guess that's up for debate. If the criminal activity is real, then I have little sympathy. If the criminal activity is unwarranted, then that's unfair and should be addressed appropriately.

 

 

In terms of social/local issues, someone from a border state would know more than me. But I just have doubts that having illegals is better than having legal immigrants... If it is better, then maybe we should all just work toward becoming illegal citizens.

 

 

A wall will stop people crossing the border like Texas' frequent use of the death penalty prevents homicides.

 

To the bold, nobody said it's better.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

 

 

 

Regarding illegal immigration, this baffles me. When you compare the cost to the U.S. from illegal immigration to the benefit, the U.S. receives far more than it pays. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for most forms of entitlements - President Clinton closed that door with his program on welfare reform, on which he campaigned. While a few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means, the overwhelming majority do not - they keep their heads down, do their jobs, send most of their earnings to family back in Mexico, and try to avoid at all costs any behaviors that would draw the attention of the government or law enforcement. For those who have babies born in the U.S., and remain, those children adapt the culture and language of the U.S. They do work that almost no Americans will do. They give more to the economy than they take. They almost never commit crimes. They want their children to acclimate the culture, do well in school, and become good citizens. And we want to keep them out...why?

 

Very interesting perspective AR, and I appreciate your thoughts. The subject of the wall is very interesting to me, and if you'll allow me to play devil's advocate here for the sake of some healthy discussion, I feel like these thoughts are a bit short-sighted. Yes, there are certainly an abundance of Mexican citizens who come to this country to work hard, send money back to their families, and to do the jobs that many others will not. But, to say that a "few individuals will attempt to gain benefits through fraudulent means" is really minimizing the impact that those individuals have. I wish that it were only a few, but that's not the case. Also, the statement that the children adapt to the US culture and language is partially true, but there are a lot of examples of that not being the case. The number of ESL classes that we have here in the SW would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm always interested in the perspective of others, especially those who do not live in border states. Here in Arizona, we have a fairly terrible reputation (a lot of it deserved) about our perceived racism towards Mexican citizens. However, living here definitely provides a different perspective on illegal immigration than those who do not live here will usually have. We have some very serious issues and challenges in this state due to illegal immigration, challenges that I don't believe that a giant wall will necessarily help. But, to state that the issues are few really does not seem accurate to me.

 

Again AR, not attacking your perspective. Your statements are always intelligent and well presented, and I appreciate that. I just thought I'd provide some contrary thoughts and opinions in the effort for good, healthy debate.

 

To the bolded:

 

Can you please explain how the number of ESL classes indicates that the children are not adapting to US culture and language?

 

I'll see what research I can find, but this is really from my personal experience of going to high school in southern California and raising kids here in Arizona. From our experience, there was absolutely no effort made in ESL classes to adapt to US culture, language, etc. Classes were taught entirely in Spanish, the curriculum was even changed to reflect Mexican culture and history. I'm not sure how this is showing any effort to make those adaptations.

 

Again, just my opinion based on personal experience. To be fair, I've also had the opportunity to meet many Mexican families who have done an amazing job adapting to the US culture. So, it's really a matter of how much emphasis the parents put on it.

 

 

My sister-in-law has taught/developed ESL programs (Spanish, Vietnamese, Filipino, Chinese) in SoCal (LA, SD, Yuma, SG Valley) and a few years ago moved to Phoenix to do the same. Her biggest criticism is the fly-by judgement of those NOT in ESL, especially of Spanish in AZ. It literally is exactly as you stated. As with anything else, it's easy to judge when you're on the outside.

 

Students generally move through ESL and assimilate at a very good rate overall. You would probably see that if you looked at the numbers provided by your school/school district.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

 

 

If we're going to spend billions on a wall, shouldn't we have a crystal-clear understanding that we're going to reap billions more in benefits from the wall?

 

What's the point of building an expensive wall that hurts America? Just to keep the Brown people out?

 

There's a strong case to be made that illegal immigrants are a net benefit to America, both economically and socially.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-thorny-economics-of-illegal-immigration-1454984443

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

 

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788

 

Trump's wall is being touted as a solution to a problem. But what's the problem?

 

 

In terms of immigrants, between 1998 and 2014, over 6,000 died in the process of crossing the border illegally - from a multitude of logistical reasons, mainly over-exposure. That's one problem that should be addressed.... Over double the number of Mexican citizens have died in the past decade illegally crossing the border, than the number of people that died on 9/11, but oh well, its a benefit to the economy. And that's not accounting the numbers killed by the cartels, who are funded by their US activities.

 

If a wall forces people to think twice before even setting off to cross illegally, then that is a good thing. Or if more of a police or military presence at the border would enable better medical aid to those migrants upon reaching the border, then that's a good thing. If there is a better option, I'm sure it would gain traction.

 

If people aren't capable of getting in legally because of some miscommunication or immigration-processing issue, or costs, or whatever, then the process needs to be improved to better work with those seeking entry into the US. That's something the US and Mexico should be working on continually.

 

If people aren't able to enter because of expected/suspected criminal activity, then I guess that's up for debate. If the criminal activity is real, then I have little sympathy. If the criminal activity is unwarranted, then that's unfair and should be addressed appropriately.

 

 

In terms of social/local issues, someone from a border state would know more than me. But I just have doubts that having illegals is better than having legal immigrants... If it is better, then maybe we should all just work toward becoming illegal citizens.

 

 

A wall will stop people crossing the border like Texas' frequent use of the death penalty prevents homicides.

 

To the bold, nobody said it's better.

 

 

Oade - I cannot find the LA Times article atm but will keep looking. IIRC, not too long ago there were 2k+ unaccompanied children being sent to the US via Mexico from Central American countries PER MONTH. I don't recall how many made it through but it was decently low. If parents/children are that desperate to get in, this wall will do nothing but possibly increase the death toll. Desperation is not logical, yes?

 

Knap - +1