The Border Wall or Fence

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If the net number of immigrants is near zero, then: 
The existing system works (you don't need to look at whether it's voluntary or deportation etc)

Well, it depends on the ultimate goal. If the goal is only to maintain immigration levels, and the efflux can be kept constant, then of course. However, if the goal is to  reduce the population having higher efflux vs influx would be desired. Likewise, if influx is curbed the efflux can be also reduced to maintain levels. (And to be clear, DACA recipients were not excluded from the indicated numbers in the analysis).

However, the bigger point is that current levels already indicate a reduced influx and under Obama the efflux has increased. I.e. there is no indication that a wall would really have any meaningful impact on current influx levels.

 

Edit: I think I was overall somewhat unclear in my phrasing. What I was thinking about is that the population levels of unauthorized immigrants were always fluid, and a kind of equilibrium exist between incoming and exiting folks. For years there was a net flow inward. While now there are still incoming unauthorized entries, they are being more than offset by exits. I.e. if using the unauthorized population as measure (and just to be clear, asylum claimants do not fall under this group, regardless what the administration says) we really see the net effect of these two movements.

As such, Ten Oz's mentioning of illegal border crossings, which is a contributing factor to influx of unauthorized immigrants (which is outweighed by simply overstaying visas) is a more direct measure of the entry part of the equation.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, it depends on the ultimate goal. If the goal is only to maintain immigration levels, and the efflux can be kept constant, then of course. However, if the goal is to  reduce the population having higher efflux vs influx would be desired. Likewise, if influx is curbed the efflux can be also reduced to maintain levels. (And to be clear, DACA recipients were not excluded from the indicated numbers in the analysis).

However, the bigger point is that current levels already indicate a reduced influx and under Obama the efflux has increased. I.e. there is no indication that a wall would really have any meaningful impact on current influx levels.

Trumps new chant:

Build a Wall! Keep then In!

[John Cuthber]

It depends, in the long run, on whether you want America empty because you deported everyone to Mexico. (That's what happens if the leavers exceeded the joiners to a large enough extent).
 

So, the problem doesn't exist anyway and the wall wouldn't solve it anyway. 

5 billion is a lot of money for that.

Perhaps we should just tell Trump we built the walL.

Tell him the Mexicans paid for it.
And just show him the net immigration figures- which are near zero or even negative.
He will claim credit for this "achievement", and the rest of the world can just carry on as before.

 

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trumps new chant:

Build a Wall! Keep then In!

Interestingly, that was one of the results of the initial border security measures. Influx was reduced slightly, efflux was reduced by a large margin, leading to a net increase of folks living unauthorized in the USA.

 

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Tell him the Mexicans paid for it.
And just show him the net immigration figures- which are near zero or even negative.
He will claim credit for this "achievement", and the rest of the world can just carry on as before.

You know what, that does not sound like a bad idea at all. As long he got something to brag about. I mean he does not really care for details too much, does he?

[John Cuthber]

It may have been mentioned already in this thread.

There's some evidence that a "strong" border does keep immigrants in.

If the border is "open" seasonal workers come in from Mexico when there's work for them.
And when the work isn't there they go home- because the cost of living is lower.
They know they can always come back next year.

But if you make the border "strong" they still cross it because the same financial incentives etc exist.
But now, when the "season" is over, they can't easily get home and they are more concerned about getting back to the US next season; so they stay.

The net result, as CharonY says, is more immigrants in the US.

 

 

[CharonY]

4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It depends, in the long run, on whether you want America empty because you deported everyone to Mexico. (That's what happens if the leavers exceeded the joiners to a large enough extent).

It would have a significant economic impact to deport every unauthorized Mexican immigrant. Especially in areas where populations are dwindling they have become an important backbone for the economic well-being of locals. There were quite a few articles describing how crackdowns by ICE have resulted in devastated farming regions and small communities. I mean, even the Trump-run hotels have employed undocumented migrants (talking about hypocrisy). 

[Raider5678]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think the confusion arises as it is not quite clear what you are asking and why.

I was asking if the study included DACA immigrants or not because I was trying to understand some statistics regarding it. Something seemed off to me about the statistics and I was trying to have it clarified.

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

They also accounted for DACA recipients. Those are still not legal residents, i.e. their status does not change by enrolling.

There. This is what I was wondering. Thank you CharonY, for actually answering my question instead of mocking me like TenOz.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It may have been mentioned already in this thread.

There's some evidence that a "strong" border does keep immigrants in.

If the border is "open" seasonal workers come in from Mexico when there's work for them.
And when the work isn't there they go home- because the cost of living is lower.
They know they can always come back next year.

But if you make the border "strong" they still cross it because the same financial incentives etc exist.
But now, when the "season" is over, they can't easily get home and they are more concerned about getting back to the US next season; so they stay.

The net result, as CharonY says, is more immigrants in the US.

 

 

The federal government doesn't even own the land required to build Trump's wall (or fence). That is why enimant domain has been discussed. Trump's wall isn't a project which is ready to be acted on. If Congress yeilded to Trump's demands tomorrow the wall would still be years away. So while I agree with the overall thoughts in your discussion with@CharonY I feel your both referencing the wall as if it were closer to a reality than it is. There are currently numerous looming court battles over the 33 milesof fencing Congress approved last March. A wall would be a far greater logistical challenge. 

 

[iNow]

The numbers here can also be viewed in terms of economics, and what a poor return we’d get from such an investment. 

https://voxeu.org/article/border-walls

Quote

This column studies the economic impact of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which built 550 new miles of fence on the US–Mexico border.

<...>

Economic theory suggests that migration will depend on both the costs of migrating and the returns from doing so. The Secure Fence Act was a policy that increased the costs of migrating. While the border wall expansion led to a small change in migration, its direct costs were substantial, and the indirect effects on the US economy were largely negative. Our results suggest that alternative policies that instead change the returns to migrating – for example, by improving economic outcomes in Mexico by reducing trade costs – may be more effective in reducing migration while also benefiting US workers. 

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by iNow

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There are currently numerous looming court battles over the 33 milesof fencing Congress approved last March.

And those battles are every bit as much of a white elephant as the wall.

It's time to kill the idea before any more money is wasted on it.

[Airbrush]

From link above:  Border apprehensions in 2017 were about 130,000 (356 per day), and in 2000 apprehensions were 1,600,000 (4300 per day!).

Does anyone know how many illegals successfully get across the southern border in any year?  Is there an estimated percentage of how many get across per total number that attempted crossing?

I think I heard that as the border gets more controlled, the migrant workers that for decades (or hundreds of years?) go BOTH ways across the border, following seasonal work, more of these migrant workers will be trapped in the US that would have gone back south.  Is that true?

Why does nobody mention that the Canada/US border is longer and less protected than the southern border?  That border would be a favorite entry into the US for terrorists and criminal gangsters.  Also thru the southern border, TUNNELS are a great way for terrorists and gangsters and drugs to enter.  Is there technology that can drive along the border, at a good speed, detecting voids underground, thus detecting tunnels?

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Airbrush

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

From link above:  Border apprehensions in 2017 were about 130,000 (356 per day), and in 2000 apprehensions were 1,600,000 (4300 per day!).

Does anyone know how many illegals successfully get across the southern border in any year?  Is there an estimated percentage of how many get across per total number that attempted crossing?

I think I heard that as the border gets more controlled, the migrant workers that for decades (or hundreds of years?) go BOTH ways across the border, following seasonal work, more of these migrant workers will be trapped in the US that would have gone back south.  Is that true?

Why does nobody mention that the Canada/US border is longer and less protected than the southern border?  That border would be a favorite entry into the US for terrorists and criminal gangsters.  Also thru the southern border, TUNNELS are a great way for terrorists and gangsters and drugs to enter.  Is there technology that can drive along the border, at a good speed, detecting voids underground, thus detecting tunnels?

 

I think at any significant depth it is very difficult, even for stationary systems.

[Huckleberry of Yore]

They are working on it.

http://www.usborderpatrol.com/Border_Patrol725.htm

"resent urges within the Department of Homeland Security are for immediate gratification. They have this Giant Urge to just walk out along the border and -- while using some magical tool -- find a tunnel in ten minutes. This does not happen. "

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

From link above:  Border apprehensions in 2017 were about 130,000 (356 per day), and in 2000 apprehensions were 1,600,000 (4300 per day!).

Does anyone know how many illegals successfully get across the southern border in any year?  Is there an estimated percentage of how many get across per total number that attempted crossing?

I think I heard that as the border gets more controlled, the migrant workers that for decades (or hundreds of years?) go BOTH ways across the border, following seasonal work, more of these migrant workers will be trapped in the US that would have gone back south.  Is that true?

Why does nobody mention that the Canada/US border is longer and less protected than the southern border?  That border would be a favorite entry into the US for terrorists and criminal gangsters.  Also thru the southern border, TUNNELS are a great way for terrorists and gangsters and drugs to enter.  Is there technology that can drive along the border, at a good speed, detecting voids underground, thus detecting tunnels?

 

Yes there are statistics about that. However, it is important to note that a) there is no statistics indicating that controlling the border would have any impact on terrorism risk (which is very small to begin with). b) too much of the discussion is framed specifically to see reduction of border crossings as a detriment per se. In my mind,  a proper cost/reward assessment would need to take the costs of these illegal crossing into account and weight it against diminishing returns in enhanced enforcement. Most measures do seem to indicate either close to cost neutrality or even net benefit, of illegal immigration. That is not to say that there should not be considerations in enforcing the border. However, at some point one should need (as with all other measures) figure out how much it is really worth to put in.

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

I think I heard that as the border gets more controlled, the migrant workers that for decades (or hundreds of years?) go BOTH ways across the border, following seasonal work, more of these migrant workers will be trapped in the US that would have gone back south.  Is that true?

As we discussed above, there are statistics indicating that, including a sharp rise in the percentage of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in the US after harder immigration enforcement in the 200s.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

 Why does nobody mention that the Canada/US border is longer and less protected than the southern border?  That border would be a favorite entry into the US for terrorists and criminal gangsters. 

Because this discussion (as it applies to the GOP platform) has nothing to do with terrorism or total amount of illegal entry. Trump himself has made it crystal clear he dislikes immigrants from "sh!thole" countries but wouldn't mind more immigrants from Norway. Also individuals with Mexican heritage overwhelming vote for Democrats. So keeping Mexican Immigrants out helps Republicans at the polls.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

 

Why does nobody mention that the Canada/US border is longer and less protected than the southern border?  That border would be a favorite entry into the US for terrorists and criminal gangsters.  Also thru the southern border, TUNNELS are a great way for terrorists and gangsters and drugs to enter.  Is there technology that can drive along the border, at a good speed, detecting voids underground, thus detecting tunnels?

 

There are some concerns:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/national-illegal-border-crossing-us-from-canada-1.4863636

"Along this one sector of the border, apprehensions of people crossing illegally are up 60 per cent over the past year, although the numbers remain minuscule relative to activity on the border with Mexico."

That's not referencing the whole border, but clearly there is an implication that our border has significantly less concerns with illegal crossings.

Edited January 16, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

As the govt remains shutdown and Trump continues to demand money for the wall it is worth remembering that even among Republican leadership support has never been solid. 

Quote

 

March 09, 2017 Mitch McConnell:

"Uh, no," he told Politico's Jake Sherman before laughing. 

McConnell said a wall is not the best way to secure some parts of the border.

"I'm in favor of border security," he said. "There are some places along the border where that's probably not the best way to secure the border."

But McConnell said he has confidence that Trump will heed his Homeland Security secretary's advice on the issue.

"I think Gen. (John) Kelly knows what he's doing and the President picked an outstanding person to be in charge of homeland security. And my suspicion is that the President will take his advice," he added. Link

 

Quote

 

08/25/2015 Lindsey Graham

“Well, Donald Trump’s plan on immigration is stupid,” the South Carolina senator said. “It’s illegal.”

If you try to deport American-born children of immigrants who came to the country illegally, “you’ll get creamed in court,” he added.

Most Hispanics, Graham remarked, find Trump offensive.

“I find him offensive,” he said. “His solution is just constitutionally flawed. It’s not practical.”

Link

 

Quote

 

August 23, 2017

Speaker Paul Ryan Wednesday rejected a threat by President Donald Trump to shut down the government to force Congress to approve funding for a border wall with Mexico.

"I don't think a government shutdown is necessary and I don't think most people want to see a government shutdown, ourselves included," the leader of the Republican-controlled House said at a news conference in Oregon where he was promoting tax reform.

Ryan argued the House had already passed funding for border security but that the narrowly divided Senate -- where Democrats have considerably more sway over what gets into funding bills -- would need more time to act.

Link

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

As the govt remains shutdown and Trump continues to demand money for the wall it is worth remembering that even among Republican leadership support has never been solid. 

 

This is not a rebuttal of Trump's current request for funding. Trump has changed his position on most of this (not that he would admit it....if he got 10 feet of wall that proved effective, he would probably claim yet another "victory" and that he was right all along)

[Raider5678]

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

Most measures do seem to indicate either close to cost neutrality or even net benefit, of illegal immigration.

As with everything, there is a balance. Agreed.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

As with everything, there is a balance. Agreed.

Agreed, the balance is good now.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Agreed, the balance is good now.

I'd disagree.

The system for legal immigration is severely flawed.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Raider5678

[J.C.MacSwell]

I's a pretty unfortunate "balance", when many feel there is a loss of control, and many feel the weight and benefits of immigration is not spread equally.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'd disagree.

The system for legal immigration is severely flawed.

 

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I's a pretty unfortunate "balance", when many feel there is a loss of control, and many feel the weight and benefits of immigration is not spread equally.

2

I'm talking about a  wall, for what its worth.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm talking about a  wall, for what its worth.

 

CharonY was referring to illegal immigration. 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I's a pretty unfortunate "balance", when many feel there is a loss of control, and many feel the weight and benefits of immigration is not spread equally.

I don't think that the feeling of loss of control is a good measure. Many are simply uninformed about the situation and any level of illegal (as well as legal) immigration can spark these types of feeling. 

To illustrate that point, according to Pew polls about 42% of the population thinks that most immigrants in the US are present illegally (in truth it is closer to 20%). Only 45% correctly assumed that most are legal I.e. many overestimate the presence of illegal immigrants. The biggest gap is based on education, only 26% of college grads think that, whereas 61 correctly assumed that there are more legal than illegal immigrants. This gap is also influenced by political leaning. 34% of conservative college grads incorrectly assumed a higher presence of illegal presence as opposed to 20% of democratic leaning grads.