The Border Wall
Why are liberals against a border wall?
Comments
-
I can't speak for any "liberals" other than myself, but I oppose the wall because...
- We don't need it... unless the president is lying to us (yet again) when he tells us that illegal border crossings are down nearly 80% since he took office. (And it turns out that throughout 2017, the president was - let's be generous here - less than careful when he characterized border crossing statistics.
- American taxpayers should not have to pay for a wall the president told us again and again and again and again Mexico would pay for... unless the president was lying to us (yet again) when he told us that. (And it turned out that the president was in fact lying to us when he told Mexico would pay for the wall.)
- Such a wall is a profoundly wrong symbol for a nation that is - and rightly touts itself as - a land of immigrants.
-
@Bill_Coley Surely you are not actually basing your arguments on Trump instead of the wall itself, which is not a Trump issue alone.
@Bill_Coley said:
I can't speak for any "liberals" other than myself, but I oppose the wall because...- We don't need it... unless the president is lying to us (yet again) when he tells us that illegal border crossings are down nearly 80% since he took office. (And it turns out that throughout 2017, the president was - let's be generous here - less than careful when he characterized border crossing statistics.
- American taxpayers should not have to pay for a wall the president told us again and again and again and again Mexico would pay for... unless the president was lying to us (yet again) when he told us that. (And it turned out that the president was in fact lying to us when he told Mexico would pay for the wall.)
- Such a wall is a profoundly wrong symbol for a nation that is - and rightly touts itself as - a land of immigrants.
That being said, how is a wall wrong for a nation of immigrants? It has nothing to do with legal immigration. Why are you opposed to legal immigration? Do you let just anyone walk into your house and sleep for the night without your knowledge?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley Surely you are not actually basing your arguments on Trump instead of the wall itself, which is not a Trump issue alone.I think if you revisit the three contentions of my previous post and the supporting links I provided, David, you will see that they are not based on Trump alone. They are based on...
1. Border crossing stats, which do in fact report a significant downturn in illegal border crossings since Trump took office, even though the president was less than careful with his use of them during 2017.
2. The fiscal realities of spending billions of American taxpayer money on a wall a) we don't need, and b) on a wall the president time and time and time again told us Mexico would pay for.
3. And on the symbolism of such a wall.That being said, how is a wall wrong for a nation of immigrants? It has nothing to do with legal immigration. Why are you opposed to legal immigration? Do you let just anyone walk into your house and sleep for the night without your knowledge?
Please note that I contended that a wall is a "profoundly wrong symbol" for a nation of immigrants. So the issue I raised has nothing to do with legal or illegal immigration. It has to do with the symbolism of a wall.
In my view, border walls symbolize separation, closure, even isolation. A nation of immigrants should be about openness and welcome, not closure and separation.
Now that I have addressed your response directly, perhaps you'll return the favor and deal directly with my arguments.
1) Are illegal border crossings down significantly since Trump took office? (And while you're at it, you might Google net-migration numbers, to see whether more people are being deported than are entering the country... HINT: They are) If illegal border crossings are down, then why do we need to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a wall?
2) Did Trump on many occasions promise that the wall would be paid for by Mexico? If so, then why should American taxpayers foot the bill?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Bill_Coley Surely you are not actually basing your arguments on Trump instead of the wall itself, which is not a Trump issue alone.I think if you revisit the three contentions of my previous post and the supporting links I provided, David, you will see that they are not based on Trump alone. They are based on...
1. Border crossing stats, which do in fact report a significant downturn in illegal border crossings since Trump took office, even though the president was less than careful with his use of them during 2017.
2. The fiscal realities of spending billions of American taxpayer money on a wall a) we don't need, and b) on a wall the president time and time and time again told us Mexico would pay for.
3. And on the symbolism of such a wall.That being said, how is a wall wrong for a nation of immigrants? It has nothing to do with legal immigration. Why are you opposed to legal immigration? Do you let just anyone walk into your house and sleep for the night without your knowledge?
Please note that I contended that a wall is a "profoundly wrong symbol" for a nation of immigrants. So the issue I raised has nothing to do with legal or illegal immigration. It has to do with the symbolism of a wall.
In my view, border walls symbolize separation, closure, even isolation. A nation of immigrants should be about openness and welcome, not closure and separation.
Now that I have addressed your response directly, perhaps you'll return the favor and deal directly with my arguments.
1) Are illegal border crossings down significantly since Trump took office? (And while you're at it, you might Google net-migration numbers, to see whether more people are being deported than are entering the country... HINT: They are) If illegal border crossings are down, then why do we need to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a wall?
Yes they are down. We could get the number down further with a wall. We don't have the manpower to patrol the whole border.
2) Did Trump on many occasions promise that the wall would be paid for by Mexico? If so, then why should American taxpayers foot the bill?
That is irrelevant but I see this really does come down to your irrational hatred of Trump. Any other liberals care to give a legitimate reason to oppose the wall?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
1) Are illegal border crossings down significantly since Trump took office? (And while you're at it, you might Google net-migration numbers, to see whether more people are being deported than are entering the country... HINT: They are) If illegal border crossings are down, then why do we need to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a wall?
Yes they are down. We could get the number down further with a wall. We don't have the manpower to patrol the whole border.
As I'm sure you know, David, but for the benefit of any readers who don' t know, a significant percentage - most estimates put it at around 40% - of "illegals" in the U.S. are NOT from illegal border crossings, but rather from visa overstays, people who entered the country legally, but did not leave before their visa expired. Obviously, a $25 billion wall would not affect that piece of the puzzle.
2) Did Trump on many occasions promise that the wall would be paid for by Mexico? If so, then why should American taxpayers foot the bill?
That is irrelevant but I see this really does come down to your irrational hatred of Trump. Any other liberals care to give a legitimate reason to oppose the wall?
I made an assertion of fact - that Trump many times promised that Mexico would pay for the wall - and based on that assertion of fact contended that American taxpayers should not pay for a wall the president promised would be paid for by Mexico. I fail to see anything irrationally hateful about either of those actions. Please enlighten me.
In response, you chose to avoid completely both the truth or falsehood of my assertion of fact and the validity of my contention that Americans shouldn't pay for a wall the president told us Mexico would pay for. Is that what passes for "rational" and "legitimate" argument for you, David?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
1) Are illegal border crossings down significantly since Trump took office? (And while you're at it, you might Google net-migration numbers, to see whether more people are being deported than are entering the country... HINT: They are) If illegal border crossings are down, then why do we need to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on a wall?
Yes they are down. We could get the number down further with a wall. We don't have the manpower to patrol the whole border.
As I'm sure you know, David, but for the benefit of any readers who don' t know, a significant percentage - most estimates put it at around 40% - of "illegals" in the U.S. are NOT from illegal border crossings, but rather from visa overstays, people who entered the country legally, but did not leave before their visa expired. Obviously, a $25 billion wall would not affect that piece of the puzzle.
Of course, granted we are talking about illegal border crossings, not illegal immigration overall. Don't move the goalposts (isn't that one of your favorite lines?).
2) Did Trump on many occasions promise that the wall would be paid for by Mexico? If so, then why should American taxpayers foot the bill?
That is irrelevant but I see this really does come down to your irrational hatred of Trump. Any other liberals care to give a legitimate reason to oppose the wall?
I made an assertion of fact - that Trump many times promised that Mexico would pay for the wall - and based on that assertion of fact contended that American taxpayers should not pay for a wall the president promised would be paid for by Mexico. I fail to see anything irrationally hateful about either of those actions. Please enlighten me.
The payment by Mexico is irrelevant as I stated. I've always thought that was a dumb statement by then candidate and now president Trump. But you are latching onto that as if it matters with regard to the wall itself and whether it is needed. You are doing that because of your irrational hatred and dislike of the President.
In response, you chose to avoid completely both the truth or falsehood of my assertion of fact and the validity of my contention that Americans shouldn't pay for a wall the president told us Mexico would pay for. Is that what passes for "rational" and "legitimate" argument for you, David?
The president's comments have nothing to do with the wall itself. The wall was a plan, and law by the way, way before Trump was in the picture. So no, it is not relevant to the conversation that Donald Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
As I'm sure you know, David, but for the benefit of any readers who don' t know, a significant percentage - most estimates put it at around 40% - of "illegals" in the U.S. are NOT from illegal border crossings, but rather from visa overstays, people who entered the country legally, but did not leave before their visa expired. Obviously, a $25 billion wall would not affect that piece of the puzzle.
Of course, granted we are talking about illegal border crossings, not illegal immigration overall. Don't move the goalposts (isn't that one of your favorite lines?).
In my view, no goal posts were harmed in the creation of my previous post. I simply added context to the immigration issue.
2) Did Trump on many occasions promise that the wall would be paid for by Mexico? If so, then why should American taxpayers foot the bill?
That is irrelevant but I see this really does come down to your irrational hatred of Trump. Any other liberals care to give a legitimate reason to oppose the wall?
We disagree. What presidents and presidential candidates say when it comes to their policy ambitions is always relevant, in my view.
The payment by Mexico is irrelevant as I stated. I've always thought that was a dumb statement by then candidate and now president Trump. But you are latching onto that as if it matters with regard to the wall itself and whether it is needed. You are doing that because of your irrational hatred and dislike of the President.
In my view it does matter because a $25 billion cost to American taxpayers matters when we were promised that the wall would cost us $0. (As I'm sure you'll recall, Trump actually said his expertise in building things would result in a wall that would cost Mexico $10-12 billion, not $25 billion.)
I don't know how you know that a) I hate Donald Trump (I don't), or b) my alleged hatred is "irrational." I base my objections to Trump's character and conduct on assertions of fact to which I almost always provide links; in my view, that's a defensibly rational approach to the expression of my objections. I will gladly welcome and consider your suggestions for less "irrational" and more "legitimate" ways to express criticisms.
The president's comments have nothing to do with the wall itself. The wall was a plan, and law by the way, way before Trump was in the picture. So no, it is not relevant to the conversation that Donald Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall.
His comments are relevant, in my view, because we don't need a wall. They also matter to me because they are part of a larger pattern of pathological lying the likes of which we have never before witnessed in American presidential politics.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
As I'm sure you know, David, but for the benefit of any readers who don' t know, a significant percentage - most estimates put it at around 40% - of "illegals" in the U.S. are NOT from illegal border crossings, but rather from visa overstays, people who entered the country legally, but did not leave before their visa expired. Obviously, a $25 billion wall would not affect that piece of the puzzle.
Of course, granted we are talking about illegal border crossings, not illegal immigration overall. Don't move the goalposts (isn't that one of your favorite lines?).
In my view, no goal posts were harmed in the creation of my previous post. I simply added context to the immigration issue.
Except we are talking specifically about border crossings, so yes, you did change it a bit.
2) Did Trump on many occasions promise that the wall would be paid for by Mexico? If so, then why should American taxpayers foot the bill?
That is irrelevant but I see this really does come down to your irrational hatred of Trump. Any other liberals care to give a legitimate reason to oppose the wall?
We disagree. What presidents and presidential candidates say when it comes to their policy ambitions is always relevant, in my view.
That's a cop out and a red herring to the actual question. Trump is the only person to suggest that Mexico will pay for the wall, but he is certainly not the first person to advocate for the wall, and most certainly not the first person liberals oppose on the wall. So no, it is not relevant.
The payment by Mexico is irrelevant as I stated. I've always thought that was a dumb statement by then candidate and now president Trump. But you are latching onto that as if it matters with regard to the wall itself and whether it is needed. You are doing that because of your irrational hatred and dislike of the President.
In my view it does matter because a $25 billion cost to American taxpayers matters when we were promised that the wall would cost us $0. (As I'm sure you'll recall, Trump actually said his expertise in building things would result in a wall that would cost Mexico $10-12 billion, not $25 billion.)
I don't know how you know that a) I hate Donald Trump (I don't), or b) my alleged hatred is "irrational." I base my objections to Trump's character and conduct on assertions of fact to which I almost always provide links; in my view, that's a defensibly rational approach to the expression of my objections. I will gladly welcome and consider your suggestions for less "irrational" and more "legitimate" ways to express criticisms.
a. It's blatantly obvious. b. Links that are easily debunked and from non credible sources.
The president's comments have nothing to do with the wall itself. The wall was a plan, and law by the way, way before Trump was in the picture. So no, it is not relevant to the conversation that Donald Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall.
His comments are relevant, in my view, because we don't need a wall. They also matter to me because they are part of a larger pattern of pathological lying the likes of which we have never before witnessed in American presidential politics.
Obama lied quite a bit actually. Do you remember the big one? "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan?" Oh yeah, liberals tend to forget that little gem. Guess that means the ACA should have been thrown out a long time ago based on your criteria.
You still have yet to show how we don't need a wall. Would a wall help curb illegal border crossings yes or no?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
2) Did Trump on many occasions promise that the wall would be paid for by Mexico? If so, then why should American taxpayers foot the bill?
That is irrelevant but I see this really does come down to your irrational hatred of Trump. Any other liberals care to give a legitimate reason to oppose the wall?
We disagree. What presidents and presidential candidates say when it comes to their policy ambitions is always relevant, in my view.
That's a cop out and a red herring to the actual question. Trump is the only person to suggest that Mexico will pay for the wall, but he is certainly not the first person to advocate for the wall, and most certainly not the first person liberals oppose on the wall. So no, it is not relevant.
We disagree as to the significance of presidential and presidential candidate promises. You apparently believe it was significant that President Obama lied when he said people could keep their own doctors (I do too, by the way - in my view, that was an irresponsible and inexcusable statement on his part) but you don't think it was significant that Donald Trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall "100%" and made that promise a central theme of his candidacy (I think Trump's statement also was irresponsible and inexcusable) Tell me how I'm not being more consistent on this matter than you are?
I don't know how you know that a) I hate Donald Trump (I don't), or b) my alleged hatred is "irrational." I base my objections to Trump's character and conduct on assertions of fact to which I almost always provide links; in my view, that's a defensibly rational approach to the expression of my objections. I will gladly welcome and consider your suggestions for less "irrational" and more "legitimate" ways to express criticisms.
a. It's blatantly obvious. b. Links that are easily debunked and from non credible sources.
Another finely crafted, carefully reasoned, substantively supported reply, David. Thank you.
Obama lied quite a bit actually. Do you remember the big one? "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your plan you can keep your plan?" Oh yeah, liberals tend to forget that little gem. Guess that means the ACA should have been thrown out a long time ago based on your criteria.
I've already commented on Obama's statement. Had he promised that Mexico was going to pay for the ACA, my objections would have been much stronger.
You still have yet to show how we don't need a wall. Would a wall help curb illegal border crossings yes or no?
Here you ask me to show that we don't "need" a wall to "help curb illegal border crossings." Do we "need" a wall because there are no other ways to curb illegal border crossings? No. Are illegal border crossings - which have declined 80%, says the president - so high that we should spend $25 billion on a wall for which we were promised Mexico would pay? No. Should I spent $100,000 a year to hire 24/7 on-site armed protection of my house and property? It sure would help reduce the chances of our house getting robbed! But alas, it would not be a wise expense.
In this matter, the onus is on you, David. You ask me to show that we don't "need" a wall. Your turn. Given the marked decline in illegal border crossings, show that $25 billion for a wall would be a wise use of American taxpayer money - that there is no more efficient, more effective use of that money for the nation - especially when we were promised that Mexico would pay for it.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
show that $25 billion for a wall would be a wise use of American taxpayer money - that there is no more efficient, more effective use of that money for the nationUsually, you know your facts better that that. Not this time.
At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend.
The wall would very soon pay for itself.
(For the record, I am not in favor of the wall)
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
show that $25 billion for a wall would be a wise use of American taxpayer money - that there is no more efficient, more effective use of that money for the nationUsually, you know your facts better that that. Not this time.
When it comes to the "facts" of illegal immigration's costs, I bet you and I agree, there is little agreement. The source you chose, for example - the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) - is well known for its pursuit of a reduction in total immigration. Given its partisan stand on the issue, we'd expect a partisan turn in the assumptions and estimates that undergird its findings. And such is the case, as the non-partisan group Politifact reports.
I take substantive issue with your argument, however, not because of the "facts" you chose, but rather with what I perceive to be your failure to connect FAIR's "facts" with your conclusion that "the wall would very soon pay for itself." As my high school chemistry always told us, "Show your work!"
How many "illegals" would a wall keep out of the country, after accounting for the steep decline in the number coming in now (so further reductions won't reduce the number as much) the fact of basically zero net-migration to this country given current deportation and illegal entry numbers, and the truth of the aphorism "Build a 30 ft wall, and they'll buy 34 ft ladders"? What assumptions and estimates do you make that lead you to conclude we would recoup the $25 billion "very soon"?
(For the record, I am not in favor of the wall)
It surprises me that you're not in favor of a wall that you believe would "very soon pay for itself." What's your objection to a wall?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
show that $25 billion for a wall would be a wise use of American taxpayer money - that there is no more efficient, more effective use of that money for the nationUsually, you know your facts better than that. Not this time.
And such is the case, as the non-partisan group Politifact reports.
>
Yeah, right. Non-partisan. You actually believe that? Well, either way, there isn't much difference in estimated costs so as it turns out, your statement, "I bet you and I agree, there is little agreement." isn't true.I take substantive issue with your argument, however, not because of the "facts" you chose, but rather with what I perceive to be your failure to connect FAIR's "facts" with your conclusion that "the wall would very soon pay for itself." As my high school chemistry always told us, "Show your work!"
What part of the "work" in the article do you not believe?
How many "illegals" would a wall keep out of the country, after accounting for the steep decline in the number coming in now (so further reductions won't reduce the number as much) the fact of basically zero net-migration to this country given current deportation and illegal entry numbers, and the truth of the aphorism "Build a 30 ft wall, and they'll buy 34 ft ladders"? What assumptions and estimates do you make that lead you to conclude we would recoup the $25 billion "very soon"?
There will be exceptions, but, as much as I hate them, walls do work. You know that, even if we don't know exact numbers. Appealing to numbers is the standard edition Bill Coley Red Herring, which I am not interested in discussing.
(For the record, I am not in favor of the wall)
It surprises me that you're not in favor of a wall that you believe would "very soon pay for itself." What's your objection to a wall?
I don't like walls. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. But I think it is tacky, expensive, and an undesirable image of America--on that detail we agree. I don't like having a cavity on my tooth drilled, but sometimes doing so is best. I don't like walls, but perhaps building one is best.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
And such is the case, as the non-partisan group Politifact reports.Yeah, right. Non-partisan. You actually believe that? Well, either way, there isn't much difference in estimated costs so as it turns out, your statement, "I bet you and I agree, there is little agreement." isn't true.
I'm guessing that I believe Politifact is non-partisan at least as much as you believe FAIR is an unbiased source for immigration analysis.
As for the degree of agreement/disagreement, Politifact judged the FAIR estimate of the cost of "illegal" immigration as "mostly false." Sounds like disagreement to me.
@Bill_Coley said:
I take substantive issue with your argument, however, not because of the "facts" you chose, but rather with what I perceive to be your failure to connect FAIR's "facts" with your conclusion that "the wall would very soon pay for itself." As my high school chemistry always told us, "Show your work!"How many "illegals" would a wall keep out of the country, after accounting for the steep decline in the number coming in now (so further reductions won't reduce the number as much) the fact of basically zero net-migration to this country given current deportation and illegal entry numbers, and the truth of the aphorism "Build a 30 ft wall, and they'll buy 34 ft ladders"? What assumptions and estimates do you make that lead you to conclude we would recoup the $25 billion "very soon"?
@GaoLu said:
There will be exceptions, but, as much as I hate them, walls do work. You know that, even if we don't know exact numbers. Appealing to numbers is the standard edition Bill Coley Red Herring, which I am not interested in discussing.So you make a claim. I ask you to flesh out your claim so as to demonstrate both its truth and applicability. And in response, you call my request a red herring that you're "not interested in discussing." Some might call your response a principled objection to my request. I call it a crafty way of avoiding the question. As a result. the claim I asked you to flesh out remains unsubstantiated AND you've both flipped the discussion to me and made it personal rather than about the issue. Well done.
@Bill_Coley said:
It surprises me that you're not in favor of a wall that you believe would "very soon pay for itself." What's your objection to a wall?@GaoLu said:
I don't like walls. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. But I think it is tacky, expensive, and an undesirable image of America--on that detail we agree. I don't like having a cavity on my tooth drilled, but sometimes doing so is best. I don't like walls, but perhaps building one is best.To express my confusion about your position on a border wall, I need to merge your response here with your response in your previous post. That process produces this...
"For the record, I am not in favor of the wall (because) I don't like walls. (But just because I'm not in favor of the wall because I don't like walls) doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. But I think (a wall) is tacky, expensive, and an undesirable image of America.... But perhaps building one is best."
If you say so.
