Maybe what you say would make sense if the wall was 10 or even 100 miles long. But Trump is proposing creating a 30 foot - or more - wall 1,000 miles long. The challenges in securing the entire extent of that are immense and what does it really protect the US from. As Oliver also stated the rates of crime, especially violent crime, committed by immigrants is actually much lower than that for US born citizens. They're not all rapists and drug dealers as in the twisted fantasy in Trumps minds. The US economy itself has largely become dependent on the large number of low paid and unregistered workers made available this way. Do you seriously believe that Trump himself hasn't used illegal aliens on his projects. The challenges in beating this wall are significantly less than sealing off an entire national border. And it's mostly being proposed out of the ignorant bias of one man to drive the xenophobia of a minority of Americans. It's not going to keep drugs out, the cartels are now using home-built submarines to bring their crap into the US. http://www.businessinsider.com/cartel-narco-submarines-2015-4 This is about a racist appealing to other racists to support him, the same goes for Trump's claims that he's going to prevent any more Muslims from entering the US, that also violates the US constitution and the separation of church and state.DougC - As Oliver- and others - pointed out all you need to get over a 30 foot wall is a 31 foot ladder.That's the kind of "logic" that makes Oliver good for nothing more than a little chuckle. You can't drive up a 31 foot ladder. You can't sneak up to a well lit and monitored wall with a 31 foot ladder. Climbing such a ladder is actually not as easy as it sounds, especially with any possessions or children. Getting down a 30 foot rope is very difficult also. Oliver obviously has not considered how such a modern wall is actually constructed. Besides the wall itself is a broad cleared zone on both sides, and access road, and additional fencing barriers, all with infrared cameras, motion detectors, vibration sensors, and listening devices networked in coordination with armed vehicular patrols. A modern wall is not just a piece of concrete, rather, a whole barrier and monitoring system. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to build a tunnel under such a system and use it all without being detected? Undoubtedly a few determined folks will find a way to temporarily breech the barrier in small numbers for a short time, which would amount to a trickle compared to the present flow.
DougC - Maybe what you say would make sense if the wall was 10 or even 100 miles long. But Trump is proposing creating a 30 foot - or more - wall 1,000 miles long.You have it back to front. If the wall is short it will be nationally ineffective because people will move their crossing to an open border. If the wall is long it would be a very effective impediment to illegal immigration. I doubt it is actually worth the actual cost of construction and maintenance. A few offhand figures tossed out during a campaign are meaningless. But balance of dollars aside, as an effective barrier, yes, it would be.
The challenges in beating this wall are significantly less than sealing off an entire national border. And it’s mostly being proposed out of the ignorant bias of one man to drive the xenophobia of a minority of Americans.It would be much easier to stop illegals with the wall, as compared to the present patrols. The idea has been around for a very long time. There is nothing new about a wall as a barrier.
It’s not going to keep drugs out, the cartels are now using home-built submarines to bring their crap into the US.What percentage of drugs come from Mexico by submarine? Checkpoint payoffs, overland open border shipments, surface craft, and small aircraft bring in the drugs from Mexico. The wall would help somewhat but the demand is so high that other methods will continue to be effective for smugglers. "30% of the drugs that arrived in the US by sea were conducted via narco submarines." So 70% of ocean going smuggling is done by surface vessels, which says nothing about land and air routes.
Trump’s claims that he’s going to prevent any more Muslims from entering the US, that also violates the US constitution and the separation of church and state.You've got that back to front also. Applicants for immigration are presumed to be violators until the individual proves to the satisfaction of USCIS they are not. That's the law and it is perfectly constitutional. American citizens enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Non-citizen applicants are presumed guilty of intent to violate until proven innocent. Again, that is the law under our constitution. Love it or hate it, those are the legal facts. We exclude entry to those who actively associate with a fascist ideology, such as certain Nazis. Islam is a fascist ideology at the core of the texts of Muhammad. I don't agree with a blanket ban on all foreign national Muslims, but it would be within legal scope.
Here’s what the “terrible, terrible” illegal immigrants contribute to the US.
The 50-state analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released on Thursday found that roughly 8.1 million of 11.4 million undocumented immigrants who work paid more than $11.8 billion in state and local taxes in 2012, even while they were living illegally in the country.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=0
Illegal immigration does have some undeniably negative economic effects. Similarly skilled native-born workers are faced with a choice of either accepting lower pay or not working in the field at all. Labor economists have concluded that undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to 7.4 percent. The impact on everyone else, though, is surprisingly positive. Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, has written a series of influential papers comparing the labor markets in states with high immigration levels to those with low ones. He concluded that undocumented workers do not compete with skilled laborers — instead, they complement them. Economies, as Adam Smith argued in “Wealth of Nations," work best when workers become specialized and divide up tasks among themselves. Pedro Chan’s ability to take care of routine tasks on a work site allows carpenters and electricians to focus on what they do best. In states with more undocumented immigrants, Peri said, skilled workers made more money and worked more hours; the economy’s productivity grew. From 1990 to 2007, undocumented workers increased legal workers’ pay in complementary jobs by up to 10 percent.So they pay billions of dollars a year in taxes, in states with higher rates of undocumented workers they stimulate the economy though they do tend to drive the wages of unskilled workers down slightly. The rates of crime for undocumented immigrants is lower than for US born citizens. So what's really the issue here, as I stated above, the drug cartels are very skilled at evading new measures to restrict their trade. So a massive wall isn't going to keep illegal drugs out of the US, it won't even keep out illegal immigrants as about half arrive in the US legally then stay. To do what Trump and Stardusty are talking about you'd need to effectively militarize the US border with Mexico, not with just a massive wall but extensive sensor networks to observe any activity along the 1,000 mile extent and a very large force of borer troops with the mobility to deploy to any section of the 1,000 mile long wall to keep people from simply climbing it with ladders and ropes or spending the time to dig under it. All this to keep out people who in many cases are a benefit to the US economy and society by stimulating growth and paying taxes. If they were all registered they pay even more in tax. Of course then it would be much harder for employers to exploit their labour, they'd start having greater protection of their rights.
You have it back to front. If the wall is short it will be nationally ineffective because people will move their crossing to an open border. If the wall is long it would be a very effective impediment to illegal immigration. I doubt it is actually worth the actual cost of construction and maintenance. A few offhand figures tossed out during a campaign are meaningless. But balance of dollars aside, as an effective barrier, yes, it would be.My point was with limited resources you could possibly seal off a 10 or 100 mile section of the border to any illegal entry, but that's still not guaranteed. Even prisons which are much smaller and under much tighter control still aren't perfectly secure. Trying to seal off 1,000 miles of border would require much more than a massive wall, it would also require a well equipped army to man it. It would end up costing billions more a year in unstated costs like this. And if it all wasn't perfectly secured then what's the point, people wanting to cross would find the weak points and use those.
It would be much easier to stop illegals with the wall, as compared to the present patrols. The idea has been around for a very long time. There is nothing new about a wall as a barrier.It's a wall, those have been around for millenia, the means to top them have been worked out long ago. As Oliver jokes in his piece, Trump's great wall could be defeated by man's third invention - the rope.
What percentage of drugs come from Mexico by submarine? Checkpoint payoffs, overland open border shipments, surface craft, and small aircraft bring in the drugs from Mexico. The wall would help somewhat but the demand is so high that other methods will continue to be effective for smugglers. "30% of the drugs that arrived in the US by sea were conducted via narco submarines." So 70% of ocean going smuggling is done by surface vessels, which says nothing about land and air routes.The point being that Trump's massive wall isn't going to keep drugs or other illegal products out of the US, there are already well established means to get those into the country.
You've got that back to front also. Applicants for immigration are presumed to be violators until the individual proves to the satisfaction of USCIS they are not. That's the law and it is perfectly constitutional. American citizens enjoy the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Non-citizen applicants are presumed guilty of intent to violate until proven innocent. Again, that is the law under our constitution. Love it or hate it, those are the legal facts. We exclude entry to those who actively associate with a fascist ideology, such as certain Nazis. Islam is a fascist ideology at the core of the texts of Muhammad. I don't agree with a blanket ban on all foreign national Muslims, but it would be within legal scope.It's still discriminating against people based on their religion, not their own personal actions. It doesn't just affect prospective US immigrants, it also would violate the rights of US Muslim citizens who may want to sponsor relatives to come to the US. The constitution is clear, the US isn't a Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other religion nation. And by discriminating against any religious group then Trump would be in violation of the Constitution, the legal battles over this alone would be fierce and prevent his policy from ever taking place. The same with this wall he's proposing. And if as I posted above, the economic and social impacts of undocumented immigrants are actually positive, then where is the justification for spending tens of billions of dollars to effectively seal off the US southern land border. This won't stop sea and air transport. What's next from Trump, projects to create genetically engineered mermen to protect America's coast and Skynet to destroy any illegal immigrants coming by air. That would be about as ridiculous, immoral and unworkable as acting like this is the Middle Ages and building a wall is going to solve anything.
building a wall is (not) going to solve anythingIt would reduce illegal immigration from Mexico to a tiny percentage, a trickle. Late night comedian quips about ladders and ropes are meaningless. A modern wall is a highly effective barrier. A wall would also be enormously costly to build and maintain. I very much doubt it makes financial sense. Immigration, both legal and illegal increases GDP. But illegals pay a fraction of the taxes they should. They pay sales tax and they pay property tax and some even file income tax, but most live in a subculture of anonymity and underground cash economy failing to pay income and social security taxes. Illegals drive down wages for honest Americans who can least afford wage reductions. The working and living conditions for illegals are an ongoing humanitarian shame on America. We could realize far greater increases in GDP, tax revenues, and increased wages with legal as opposed to illegal immigration. So, I think it makes practical sense to give illegals in otherwise good legal standing a path to guest worker status in the open while continuing our efforts to cut off illegal immigration and stepping up the numbers we let in legally. A wall would certainly be of great benefit in implementing such a multipronged approach, but at a cost of many tens of billions it seems unlikely to be worth the expense.
I think that any law that proscribed persons because of their religion would be patently unconstitutional.
And if as I posted above, the economic and social impacts of undocumented immigrants are actually positive, then where is the justification for spending tens of billions of dollars to effectively seal off the US southern land border. This won't stop sea and air transport.Anyone can find and post studies which show illegal immigration is not beneficial. Where is the justification for spending tens of millions of dollars on a Border Patrol, ICE, existing fences, an Immigration System and Bureaucracy which includes visas and applications for visas, permits and citizenship? What's the justification for all that? If illegal immigration is beneficial? It should just be open. Then everybody benefits right? You're absolutely right! How has the US gotten away with such an expensive, unnecessary system that is keeping beneficial interests from entering the country? Over 100 years. What a waste! Think of how much more we could be benefiting right now! That's all sarcasm by the way. Except the part about it being very easy to find studies which show illegal immigration is harmful.
That's all sarcasm by the way. Except the part about it being very easy to find studies which show illegal immigration is harmful.Then show us some.
That's all sarcasm by the way. Except the part about it being very easy to find studies which show illegal immigration is harmful.Then show us some. They have already been posted by myself and others. Avail yourself with the Search Function.
Just to make it clear, I don’t think this is an issue about removing any controls on border access and national integrity. This is an issue about spending tens of billions of dollars on implementing an unworkable policy that the person behind it has already indicated is based on his ignorance, not facts.
Most Mexicans are not drug dealers, rapists, murders or whatever else that Donald Trump has typified them as. There’s simply no need to build a massive and pointless wall along the US southern border other than to reinforce biases that are already tearing the US apart.
Just to make it clear, I don't think this is an issue about removing any controls on border access and national integrity. This is an issue about spending tens of billions of dollars on implementing an unworkable policy that the person behind it has already indicated is based on his ignorance, not facts.You're not qualified to make that assessment. I know you went to the John Oliver school of political science and finished with a Masters in SNL studies, but there already are existing infrastructures designed to keep illegal aliens out. That means there is a governmental/political/national will to curtail illegal aliens. Also you never answered my question. You had said walls are racist. My question was, are the existing walls racist too? And what race are we talking about anyways?
That's all sarcasm by the way.you should make that your signature.
Trump reminds me of a Saturday morning cartoon villain. “Now I shall reveal my most ingenius plan to defeat my foe BPOMA* yet. I shall build a wall to keep them away. Mwahaha! Best of all, I shall make them pay for it! Mwahahahaha! TRUMP!”
*Brown People of Mesoamerica
As I and others have already pointed out, a wall itself won't solve anything, it's just the start of an unending escalation of force along the US border. The Great Wall of China depended on permanent garrisons of large numbers of soldiers. And people are still going to find a way to defeat Trump's wall, it's a simple minded solution from a very limited mind.building a wall is (not) going to solve anythingIt would reduce illegal immigration from Mexico to a tiny percentage, a trickle. Late night comedian quips about ladders and ropes are meaningless. A modern wall is a highly effective barrier.
A wall would also be enormously costly to build and maintain. I very much doubt it makes financial sense.And as I've been pointing out the wall itself is just a start, you'd need extensive and very expensive measures to protect the wall itself.
Immigration, both legal and illegal increases GDP. But illegals pay a fraction of the taxes they should. They pay sales tax and they pay property tax and some even file income tax, but most live in a subculture of anonymity and underground cash economy failing to pay income and social security taxes.So register them and take away a lot of the downsides of having millions of unregistered people living in America.
Illegals drive down wages for honest Americans who can least afford wage reductions. The working and living conditions for illegals are an ongoing humanitarian shame on America.They can drive down the wages of unskilled workers in some areas but can also drive up the wages of skilled workers. The net effect is most likely a small benefit to the US economy.
We could realize far greater increases in GDP, tax revenues, and increased wages with legal as opposed to illegal immigration. So, I think it makes practical sense to give illegals in otherwise good legal standing a path to guest worker status in the open while continuing our efforts to cut off illegal immigration and stepping up the numbers we let in legally. A wall would certainly be of great benefit in implementing such a multipronged approach, but at a cost of many tens of billions it seems unlikely to be worth the expense.The first part of that makes sense, the second doesn't. You build walls to defend against enemies, despite what Donald Trump is claiming, Mexico is not America's enemy, it's one of its closest trading partners. Not only is the wall impractical and pointless, it's needlessly antagonistic towards a neighbour...advocated by a man that is endlessly and needlessly antagonistic towards almost everyone who doesn't show him sycophantic devotion.
DougC - As I and others have already pointed out, a wall itself won’t solve anything,That is obvious to all but silly guys like John Oliver. I have pointed this out myself above. The term "wall" does not mean simply erecting a stand alone concrete wall and walking away from it. Nobody with any serious rational capacity would propose such a thing. A modern wall is a whole barrier system, as I have pointed out above. Typically there is a second line of defense in the form of a heavy fence that forms a no-man's-zone. Also, a broad path is cleared on both sides of the wall and an access road is build along the wall, typically a gravel road for trucks and AWD SUVs, but as long as Mexico is gonna pay let's just put in a 2 lane highway!-) In addition are the cameras, the IR equipment, motion detectors, listening devices, vibration sensors, and the networked connection to the border patrol. A modern wall is a whole barrier system, obviously. Or it least it should be obvious to anybody serious about the subject, which John Oliver certainly is not, preferring to grab a few cheap laughs. Well, that's show business, fine, but it has no analytical merit.
They can drive down the wages of unskilled workers in some areas but can also drive up the wages of skilled workers.Drive up skilled wages? I think you are imagining things here.
You build walls to defend against enemiesI have a wall. It separates my courtyard from the public sidewalk. That does not mean I consider the whole outside world to be my enemy. A wall is a barrier to whatever or whoever one seeks to limit. A modern wall system is a very effective barrier when realistically designed and maintained. A modern wall system would be a highly effective tool for the border patrol we already have. It would make our present border patrol vastly more effective and would slow illegal crossings by land to a trickle, but it would cost far more money than Trump or any other candidate is suggesting.
That is obvious to all but silly guys like John Oliver.It's a central policy of the Republican Party front-runner, there's a very real chance he could be elected in November at which point this becomes a campaign promise Trump either fulfills or pisses off all the people who have cheered him on over this.
I have pointed this out myself above. The term "wall" does not mean simply erecting a stand alone concrete wall and walking away from it. Nobody with any serious rational capacity would propose such a thing. A modern wall is a whole barrier system, as I have pointed out above. Typically there is a second line of defense in the form of a heavy fence that forms a no-man's-zone. Also, a broad path is cleared on both sides of the wall and an access road is build along the wall, typically a gravel road for trucks and AWD SUVs, but as long as Mexico is gonna pay let's just put in a 2 lane highway!-) In addition are the cameras, the IR equipment, motion detectors, listening devices, vibration sensors, and the networked connection to the border patrol. A modern wall is a whole barrier system, obviously. Or it least it should be obvious to anybody serious about the subject, which John Oliver certainly is not, preferring to grab a few cheap laughs. Well, that's show business, fine, but it has no analytical merit.It's also the kind of thing that countries like the USSR, North Korea and Israel do because it's the only way to maintain a political and social structure that simply can't stand on it's own without a thick shell for protection. If Trump sees the US in this light then it's one more reason to not support his run for the Oval Office.
Drive up skilled wages? I think you are imagining things here.Yah, me and the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=1
Illegal immigration does have some undeniably negative economic effects. Similarly skilled native-born workers are faced with a choice of either accepting lower pay or not working in the field at all. Labor economists have concluded that undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to 7.4 percent. The impact on everyone else, though, is surprisingly positive. Giovanni Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, has written a series of influential papers comparing the labor markets in states with high immigration levels to those with low ones. He concluded that undocumented workers do not compete with skilled laborers — instead, they complement them. Economies, as Adam Smith argued in “Wealth of Nations," work best when workers become specialized and divide up tasks among themselves. Pedro Chan’s ability to take care of routine tasks on a work site allows carpenters and electricians to focus on what they do best. In states with more undocumented immigrants, Peri said, skilled workers made more money and worked more hours; the economy’s productivity grew. From 1990 to 2007, undocumented workers increased legal workers’ pay in complementary jobs by up to 10 percent.
I have a wall. It separates my courtyard from the public sidewalk. That does not mean I consider the whole outside world to be my enemy. A wall is a barrier to whatever or whoever one seeks to limit. A modern wall system is a very effective barrier when realistically designed and maintained. A modern wall system would be a highly effective tool for the border patrol we already have. It would make our present border patrol vastly more effective and would slow illegal crossings by land to a trickle, but it would cost far more money than Trump or any other candidate is suggesting.See above, it's also something that really sick societies like the Soviet Union and North Korea do to hide from the outside world.
I suggest that we spend the billions on useful internal infrastructure, rather than making enemies of our next door neighbors by forcing them to pay for a useless border wall.
DougC - It’s a central policy of the Republican Party front-runner"It" what? You are equivocating. Do you really think president Trump will reject design proposals that treat the wall as a modern barrier system as opposed to a simple concrete unsupervised structure? Obviously, if a wall is built from the Pacific to the Atlantic it will be a total barrier system that integrates with our present border patrol. But that point is not obvious to John Oliver because he is in the business of getting a few cheap laughs.
It’s also the kind of thing that countries like the USSR, North Korea and IsraelHow ridiculous. You obviously have difficulty grasping distinctions. The Berlin wall was to keep people in, not out. The Korean DMZ is a military buffer zone for nations at war, Israel is an apartheid state and uses the wall to prevent infiltration of asymmetric military attackers. The purpose of a border wall with Mexico would be to stop crime, the crime of illegal immigration. The USA is not keeping its citizens in, nor are we in a state of war with Mexico, nor are we holding out asymmetric military attackers from Mexico because Mexico is not a Bantustan of the USA. What utterly groundless comparisons.
In states with more undocumented immigrants, Peri said, skilled workers made more money and worked more hours; the economy’s productivity grewCorrelation is not causation. Border states have had a construction boom. Wages in California in particular are inflated along with the rest of the economy.
it’s also something that really sick societies like the Soviet Union and North Korea do to hide from the outside world.So, the USA is hiding from the outside world? My mind explodes with negative superlatives to the sheer inanity of that notion but I can add ridiculous, preposterous, and well, let the reader continue on...
"It" what? You are equivocating. Do you really think president Trump will reject design proposals that treat the wall as a modern barrier system as opposed to a simple concrete unsupervised structure? Obviously, if a wall is built from the Pacific to the Atlantic it will be a total barrier system that integrates with our present border patrol. But that point is not obvious to John Oliver because he is in the business of getting a few cheap laughs.As I've already pointed out, it's impossible to even perfectly secure something as limited in area as a prison, what you're claiming simply isn't possible. It's not a few hundred yards of wall, it's 1,000 miles. It would require billions of dollars to build the massive wall, would likely require extensive waivers of many federal laws just like the border fencing did and billions more spent in maintenance and support. If built it's going to create an infrastructure that needs to be defended. Any parts left unsupervised would be subject to destruction. As I said it's 1,000 miles long, even with modern technology the challenge in keeping all that under observation and manned is massive. John Oliver didn't miss any of that, you seem to be missing the scale of what's being proposed.
How ridiculous. You obviously have difficulty grasping distinctions. The Berlin wall was to keep people in, not out. The Korean DMZ is a military buffer zone for nations at war, Israel is an apartheid state and uses the wall to prevent infiltration of asymmetric military attackers.The Berlin Wall was just one tiny section of a fortified border that separated Western and Eastern Europe starting in the late 1940s. It was intended to do exactly what Trump and you seem to think is so crucial, completely control the flow of people and material across a border. They have nothing to do with free and open societies, they're actually anathema to them. Kind of like a presidential candidate that doesn't want to answer very important questions from the press and advocates violence to stifle dissent. A massive wall on the border would likely just be the start for Trump.
The purpose of a border wall with Mexico would be to stop crime, the crime of illegal immigration.Right, based on the idiotic claims of Trump that most Mexicans are drug dealers, murders or rapists. And you don't see anything racist in this, or the fact that he still makes claims like Muslims were seen partying on rooftops in New Jersey as the Twin Towers came down or that he went to an extraordinary effort to "prove" that America's first Black President isn't really an American. There's probably a great reason he won't condemn clear racists that have pledged their support to him like David Duke, he gives every sign of being one of them. Which means this wall has very little to do with crime and a huge amount to do with bigotry.
The USA is not keeping its citizens in, nor are we in a state of war with Mexico, nor are we holding out asymmetric military attackers from Mexico because Mexico is not a Bantustan of the USA.And you don't think that creating a heavily fortified border isn't a hostile act, it's basically saying to your neighbour that he is in fact your enemy.
What utterly groundless comparisons.Go ahead and compare it to other borders between open and free states, this is the kind of idiocy that dictators get up to. If this is best that Trump supporters can come up with in defence of their deranged candidate then the US is in very serious trouble if he does in fact get elected to office.
I’m done trying to discuss anything with people who have bought into the Trump delusion, it’s a pointless exercise in trying to reason with the completely irrational.