*Liberal Trigger Warning*...Trump's Border Wall Is Happening.

[Prefect]

im skeptical about the effectiveness of the wall, but welcome it nonetheless.

the symbolism, the jobs, and less migration = win win win

trump can eat a dick on everything else he does though

A wall doesn't create jobs. Investment in infrastructure, education, safety net programs create jobs. This wall burns through tax money and nothing more economic comes from it. Similarly, military manufacturing doesn't create jobs. Unnecessary things which don't add to our economic engine are ultimately job killers.

If we spent 1 billion dollars to build the world's biggest dirt pile, what do we have when it completed? 1 billion in debt and a worthless pile of dirt.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Haha you're so gotten to.

@Devout Pessimist is buried deep in your brain, stay salty lmao!

The delusions of a trump supporter.

 

[bobgeese]

Why is Trump and the rest of conservative white America so scared of Latinos if we are so weak and degenerate? Makes no sense for the supposedly "strong" to fear the "weak."

We're actually fighting for Latinos, Indians, Asians, and foreigners of all creeds who are doing it legally, who are unfairly being "cut in front of in line" by people coming illegally.


Do you let people cut in front of you in line? Or do you speak up.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I think the issue is that the border is already pretty damn secure and net immigration with Mexico has been near 0 for nearly the past 10 years.

It's a lot of money being thrown at a problem that isn't as big as it once was.

Hiring surges in the border patrol has actually been shown to make us less secure in the past and the sections of the border that aren't walled, aren't walled because of lack of funding or initiative, but because they're some of the most deadly deserts on Earth. Building a wall the entire length of our border would be both extremely hazardous and a logistical nightmare as large stretches of the border there is no civilization for miles and miles. Just read the article, it's 95 degrees in the middle of October just outside San Diego, that's not even near the actual deserts.

Additionally, a large section of the border is actually the Rio Grande river and in order to wall it off we would either have to cede it to Mexico completely or take their land. I don't think either is going to happen and the natural border will remain.

The problem we have isn't the flow of illegals into the country anymore, it's integrating or removing the ones already here.

I think the money would be better spent modernizing the Border Patrol and Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard in particular as way more trafficking and smuggling goes on in the ocean these days, and creating a path to legal citizenship or at least temporary status for those here or working toward removing them.

But none of these ideas are easy on the eyes and are not really that visible

The right wing wants something to look at to feel good and safe

 

[Der Eisbär]

A wall doesn't create jobs. Investment in infrastructure, education, safety net programs create jobs. This wall burns through tax money and nothing more economic comes from it. Similarly, military manufacturing doesn't create jobs. Unnecessary things which don't add to our economic engine are ultimately job killers.

If we spent 1 billion dollars to build the world's biggest dirt pile, what do we have when it completed? 1 billion in debt and a worthless pile of dirt.

Why does it create jobs when you build a road and not a wall? I understand the macro effects the road has on economics but I mean the building of the thing itself. This doesn't make sense. If you put people to work building a wall it creates jobs. If you put people to work building a road it creates jobs. You could even argue building the wall has lasting macro effects by stifling immigration which will drive up wages. So?

 

[bobgeese]

A wall doesn't create jobs. Investment in infrastructure, education, safety net programs create jobs. This wall burns through tax money and nothing more economic comes from it. Similarly, military manufacturing doesn't create jobs. Unnecessary things which don't add to our economic engine are ultimately job killers.

If we spent 1 billion dollars to build the world's biggest dirt pile, what do we have when it completed? 1 billion in debt and a worthless pile of dirt.

You're a complete buffoon.

My city has a military complex which employs a good deal of our population. Furthermore, trumps military investments have greatly benefited our town and kept up job security for the foreseeable future.



You live in a liberal fantasy safe space.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

so we're going to pay for it, not mexico?

will this be a better or worse economic impact than immigration?

 

[Pupi]

We're actually fighting for Latinos, Indians, Asians, and foreigners of all creeds who are doing it legally, who are unfairly being "cut in front of in line" by people coming illegally.


Do you let people cut in front of you in line? Or do you speak up.

I'm surprised somebody like you differentiates between Latinos, Indians, Asians, and foreigners.

 

[Pupi]

so we're going to pay for it, not mexico?

will this be a better or worse economic impact than immigration?

American taxpayers will pay everything while Trump gives tax breaks to churches and the wealthy,

This will be an economic catastrophe.

 

[chardog]

You said Democrats don't support e-verify. Which is it?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._white_house_immigration_proposal_135216.html
Democrats Reject White House Immigration Proposal

"
But Trump’s proposal Sunday includes significant changes to how the U.S. handles legal and illegal immigration, throwing a wrench into any potential agreement and creating a canyon between the White House and Democrats on finding a path forward.

Trump’s outline included funding his proposed border wall -- though Democrats believed the president had agreed to put that off, as he said last month that “the wall will come later.” Other controversial elements are a crackdown on sanctuary cities, limiting the number of refugees entering the U.S. and changing the legal immigration system from a family-based one to a point-based merit system. It also included an increase in immigration officers and attorneys and mandatory use of E-Verify to ensure workers have legal status, among myriad other policies.

President Trump, in a letter to congressional leaders, said the proposals “must be included” in any legislation addressing undocumented immigrants who had received protective status under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, President Obama’s executive action.


Democrats, however, immediately rejected the plan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a joint statement Sunday night: “This list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise.”

Numerous other Democrats echoed those criticisms, labeling the proposal a “nonstarter” or “dead on arrival.” Though Democrats rejected the White House outline, they suggested that a deal could still be struck in the coming months, but their positioning means Republicans and the White House would likely have to abandon many of the principles Trump outlined Sunday."

unless I'm outdated, is this not relevant?

looks like it gave dems DACA and E-Verify, which they consider the pinnacle of the immigration debate.

it looks entirely possible, that they dont care that much for e-verify now that Trump is in office and wants it to be mandatory for everyone. Considering how they love to talk it up about punishing employers, Trump is offering a pretty damn nice olive branch.

 

[HomerThompson]

We're actually fighting for Latinos, Indians, Asians, and foreigners of all creeds who are doing it legally, who are unfairly being "cut in front of in line" by people coming illegally.


Do you let people cut in front of you in line? Or do you speak up.

Trump wants to reduce legal immigration significantly.

 

[HomerThompson]

Why does it create jobs when you build a road and not a wall? I understand the macro effects the road has on economics but I mean the building of the thing itself. This doesn't make sense. If you put people to work building a wall it creates jobs. If you put people to work building a road it creates jobs. You could even argue building the wall has lasting macro effects by stifling immigration which will drive up wages. So?

Wages haven't risen in 40 years in the US. I'm pretty sure that immigration isn't the culprit.

 

[HomerThompson]

You're a complete buffoon.

My city has a military complex which employs a good deal of our population. Furthermore, trumps military investments have greatly benefited our town and kept up job security for the foreseeable future.



You live in a liberal fantasy safe space.

No, your entire town lives in a MIC safe space.

 

[HomerThompson]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._white_house_immigration_proposal_135216.html
Democrats Reject White House Immigration Proposal

"
But Trump’s proposal Sunday includes significant changes to how the U.S. handles legal and illegal immigration, throwing a wrench into any potential agreement and creating a canyon between the White House and Democrats on finding a path forward.

Trump’s outline included funding his proposed border wall -- though Democrats believed the president had agreed to put that off, as he said last month that “the wall will come later.” Other controversial elements are a crackdown on sanctuary cities, limiting the number of refugees entering the U.S. and changing the legal immigration system from a family-based one to a point-based merit system. It also included an increase in immigration officers and attorneys and mandatory use of E-Verify to ensure workers have legal status, among myriad other policies.

President Trump, in a letter to congressional leaders, said the proposals “must be included” in any legislation addressing undocumented immigrants who had received protective status under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, President Obama’s executive action.


Democrats, however, immediately rejected the plan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a joint statement Sunday night: “This list goes so far beyond what is reasonable. This proposal fails to represent any attempt at compromise.”

Numerous other Democrats echoed those criticisms, labeling the proposal a “nonstarter” or “dead on arrival.” Though Democrats rejected the White House outline, they suggested that a deal could still be struck in the coming months, but their positioning means Republicans and the White House would likely have to abandon many of the principles Trump outlined Sunday."

unless I'm outdated, is this not relevant?

looks like it gave dems DACA and E-Verify, which they consider the pinnacle of the immigration debate.

it looks entirely possible, that they dont care that much for e-verify now that Trump is in office and wants it to be mandatory for everyone. Considering how they love to talk it up about punishing employers, Trump is offering a pretty damn nice olive branch.

They rejected his stupid wall. Christ.

 

[chardog]

They rejected his stupid wall. Christ.

Grandstanding, dems were never about stopping illegal immigration, why even pretend?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You're a complete buffoon.

My city has a military complex which employs a good deal of our population. Furthermore, trumps military investments have greatly benefited our town and kept up job security for the foreseeable future.



You live in a liberal fantasy safe space.

Here's more
Information you lack. Huge amounts of military spending does not create a windfall of jobs as say spending on education

 

[HomerThompson]

Grandstanding, dems were never about stopping illegal immigration, why even pretend?

I simply rejected your point that Republicans and Trump are all about e-verify. They're not. Dems aren't particularly either. You managed to completely contradict yourself in the span of 2 posts. Let it go.

 

[Rational Poster]

DACA for wall deal. read the news, e-verify is included, and considering that libs consider employers the culprit of the issue, they're getting 2 for 1.

if there are no housing no one would have come
if there are no schooling no one would have come
if there are no jobs no one would come

Under the table workers are already being targeted by ICE, there's only so much you can do, not many employers have the cash to dish out for under the table workers.

half of the illegal immigrants pay SS taxes, and E-verify would weed them out, all 3+ million of them

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/19/news/economy/undocumented-immigrant-taxes/index.html

facts, you dont like them.

lol housing?

American landlords benefit from illegals. They pay for housing in living conditions most Americans wouldn't put up with. They can't complain because the landlords are very aware of the status and use it to their advantage.

The majority of illegals are working age men and women, they're not coming here for schools.

You're right that if we didn't hire them, most of them wouldn't comes.

WE benefit from them paying SS taxes. They pay into the system and do not ever get to draw from it.

 

[Fawlty]

Hmm. They're so unsure that they are still looking at EIGHT plans (jfc lol), which no doubt they have not researched properly (Trump bless) and that is supposed to trigger "libruls" into being angry and a-feared about the wall? It tells me that this massive clusterfuck is still a massive clusterfuck.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Wages haven't risen in 40 years in the US. I'm pretty sure that immigration isn't the culprit.

The reasons for stagnant wages are multifaceted. One of those facets is the influx of low-skilled low-cost uneducated laborers. I'm not even saying the wall would keep out immigrants and drive up wages, I'm just saying you could argue that.