RestorationOfLiberty
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2016
- Messages
- 1,556
Apprehensions going down doesn't mean there are fewer coming in, it only means there are fewer getting apprehended.Some come in, some go out. If there are more coming in than leaving, the total goes up. If more leave, the total goes down. They can both be right. What border patrol statistics do you have?
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/dhs-releases-end-fiscal-year-2015-statistics
DHS releases end of fiscal year 2015 statistics
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/14/mexico-us-border-apprehensions/
Apprehensions going down doesn't mean there are fewer coming in, it only means there are fewer getting apprehended.
If the border patrols are instructed to stand down, and the volume of traffic remains the same, that means MORE are coming in, not less.
America LIKES cheap labor, and LOVES giving them free stuff.
Agreed.The companies and government do, Americans do not.
Agreed.
Just remember to keep your papers handy should we knock on your door, ask your employer, or stop you on the street to be sure you are not one of "them". Left your papers at home? Sorry- we have a bus to Mexico waiting for you. Oops. I almost forgot. We will be raising your taxes by 15% to pay for the convenience.
As Occam said; "It'll be different this time."
Right?
What with your grand schemes, new ideas and tougher laws how could it not?
Look in the mirror, you are the problem.
[edit]
If you must "do something" here's a couple of ideas;
Wrap the purse strings tightly around congresses neck and tighten like a tourniquet with a long lever.
Take the pens of those who would pen more laws and use them to perform lobotomies on those calling for them.
Take the weapons away from all government employees acting 'in-country' and make them beg for sustenance.
^^^^^^^ These are my Sunday morning 'nice' thoughts. ^^^^^^^^^
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.
So nothing practical or that will happen, gotcha.
Think what you will, but he is right.
Sure, I will and I will keep saying had we not let things get this bad it would not have come down to this.
Also as we decrease the population of welfare/service users the tax burden will decrease, but alas math, logic, and reason is not your strong suit nor that of any immigration zealot.
Lower taxes, lower prices, lower cost of living, lower crime, less terrorism, fewer leftist voters, And to think you are fighting against us.
Dont waste time post your lies...
BTW cold replying is proof you do not want a reply back.
Building a wall and rounding up immigrants won't decrease the welfare state. It won't reduce crime or prices or terrorism. If your goal is to reduce welfare, you are aiming at the wrong target.
It will raise prices (less cheap labor), taxes (to build the wall and expand the police state to round up everybody) and it will reduce liberty for all while expanding the size and power of the government. Not a good trade in my book. (plus loss of jobs at all the places those immigrants currently spend their money).
An Engineer does the Cost Estimate of Trump's Wall
As an interested civil engineer, I decided to do some number crunching to see how incredibly expensive this particular project will be.
Thankfully, engineer Ali F. Rhuzkan already provided material estimates for the wall. I simply took his material estimates, found national average costs, and totaled them up. Let’s break it down step by step. The previous calculations stated that the wall will be built using pre-cast (place and set at indoor facility and transport harden concrete panels to job site) and cast-in-place (wet concrete placed at site) concrete. We will also need to include the steel rebar in the material costs.
Going off of materials estimate we have…
167,272,000 cubic yards of cast-in-place concrete at $93/cubic yard = $15,556,296,000
1,030,000 segments of 10’ pre-cast panels at $17/panel = $17,510,000
2,500,000 tons of steel rebar at $600/ton = $1,500,000,000
Total Material Cost Estimate: $17,073,806,000
A 2015 study by the American Action Forum, a conservative pro-immigration group, estimates the federal government would have to spend roughly $400 billion to $600 billion to deport 11.3 million undocumented immigrants and prevent future unlawful entry into the U.S. over a 20 year time period.
In order to implement the plan, the study says, each immigrant would have to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and transported to his or her home country.
Mass deportation will burden the economy, the report goes on. Removing all undocumented immigrants would cause the labor force to shrink by 6.4%. As a result, 20 years from now the economy would be nearly 6% or $1.6 trillion smaller than it would be if the immigrants are allowed to stay.
Will it be cheaper? What is the cost of a wall and deporting them all?
http://imgur.com/gallery/KVdSb
$17 billion. Note that is just materials for a wall. That does not include labor or getting materials on site nor costs of staffing and upkeep on a wall. Also keep in mind that cost overruns on a government project can be huge.
Then what about the costs of finding and deporting 11 million illegal immigrants?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaes...-months-prohibitively-expensive/#5afbc95b2b1e
So we are talking more than half a $trillion and shrinking the economy by over $1 trillion.
But one fact that often gets overlooked is that the U.S. population has been and continues to grow at a faster rate than its industrialized peers. Take a look now at GDP growth over that same period, this time on a per capita basis:
US GDP per Capita Growth Chart
US GDP per Capita Growth data by YCharts
Here, the competition is much closer. In fact, the U.S. doesn’t even win. On a per capita basis, these countries grow at:
![]()
2.0% in the U.K.
1.8% in the U.S.
1.6% in Japan
and 1.2% in France.
Take away America’s faster population growth, and there’s a lot less of a difference between its economic growth compared to its wealthy nation peers. This puts into perspective, for instance, the current debate over health care reform in the U.S. Britain has socialized medicine, a fact that pushes the share of yearly GDP spent by the government close to 50%, yet it has managed to grow its economy faster than the U.S. on a per-capita basis, for which government spending represents a smaller share of GDP.
So, population growth is good for economic growth. This seems intuitive — more people means more economic activity. And in the U.S., population growth is increasingly reliant on immigration. Sure, birth rates are higher in the U.S. than in other wealthy countries, but they are on the decline, and the Census bureau estimates that immigration will be the main driver of population growth within 30 years.
More automation/ mechanization means fewer jobs. And as for US births- they are not keeping up with deaths. The only reason our population is currently growing is immigration (only 0.7% last year). And immigrant birth rates have been declining as well. There is nothing to feed your economic boom. Without it we will be more like Europe today. Our GDP has been growing faster because our population has been growing faster.
![]()
http://fortune.com/2014/03/05/without-immigration-the-u-s-economy-looks-like-sclerotic-old-europe/