It's a.complex question that has been answered over and over, and always in the same way, by reputable methodology. Pretending that there is still uncertainty in the matter is straight bull**** gaslighting.

They’d be crazy to enter from the North in the winter, for the night is dark and full of terrors.

the conversation probably should have ended back when i pointed out how prolific humans are at climbing and tunnelling

but alas, here we are

This is the article I read: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...llion-annuall/

It even questions some things but says it's half-true at the end. So let's make the number 150 billion.

Now how about demanding people show a reference that backs up a wall will increase crossings?

You’re wrong. There are a ton of studies on how a negative bithrate / population decline are terrible for an economy. Just look at Japan and what’s happening there for an example. The US’s population numbers are only in the positive because of immigration, in stark contrast to a lot of other first world countries with homogenous populations.

Give me your whites

The end.

Why does Trump want democrats to stop the military?

You are a moron

Sorry, #6, blatantly lie about the contents of your own citation so you can pretend to still be correct was not an acceptable response. We're down to 4 or 5.

The only part that matters from that politifact link:

link/quote of post claiming wall will increase crossings

I was once on the Metro reading the Bourne Supremacy, which is insanely horrible nonsense, and some pretentious wannabe sitting next to me rolled his eyes about how much worse the (really really good) movie (which actually shares no plot elements with the book) was.

Bond novels are also completely unreadable. Like, in the book version of Casino Royale, Bond gets sent in to the casino because he's the best baccarat player that MI6 has.

The cost claim doesn't actually consider the net benefits in the figure and your claim was that some studies claim 300 billion NET cost.

From the study you are using as your reference:


"Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S. "
"Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S. "
"Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S. "
"Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S. "
"Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S. "
"Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S. "
"Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S. "
"Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S. "

Arent you literally doing that in this post?

businessdude,

Are you that stupid or doing it on purpose? I never claimed it WOULD just that "common sense" can't determine the answer as there are opposing factors and I gave a reason I didn't make up, but came from Border Patrol's initial reaction to the wall.

The only assertion being made is that it will prevent crossings, presumably on net otherwise what's the point. You cite something that a wall resembling the Trump plan spanning a length approaching the US-Mexico border with staffing similar to what could reasonably be expected would lower net illegal crossing.

Waste of typing there though, I don't know if you won't read it, can't understanding it or will continue in bad faith (lying really), but it's one of those things.

Come on, dude. This isn't the article that you got the $300 million number from. This is Politfact's debunking of the Washington Times article that you read. And it sure as hell doesn't say, or even imply, that the correct number is $150 billion. That's a straight up misrepresentation of your own link.

My two cents about the wall:

If President Kamala Harris or whoever gave 5 billion dollars for wall construction, I really wouldn't care. I would assume that they did their homework and found that a wall in spot X was the best way to control the flow of migration.

That said, I don't want Donald Trump to build a wall, even if it cost 0 dollars. There's no hypocrisy in this, because the entire world knows what the wall symbolizes for Donald Trump and his racist supporters and why they want it so bad. No one would shut down the government for a mere 5 billion dollars in border security. The symbolism of the wall is the real objective here, and that is what I don't want to see achieved.

Wookie is perpetually prone to hyperbole, but in this case he is exactly correct. You are willfully misrepresenting the very article that you linked to.

And I highly doubt you had ever read the article until I posted it twenty minutes before you did.

This is not even close to being one of the worst things about that book. I Don't Even Own a Television has a good episode on Casino Royale.

Re: economics of border walls

There's an interesting recent NBER working paper that looked at the impact from an expansion of border fencing due to the 2006 Secure Fence Act (full text here). They also did some analysis comparing that policy decision to some other policies that might have been implemented instead:

Background:

The impact of new fencing:

So that's $7 per person to increase low-skilled laborers wages by $0.36 (cf. p. 33)

On alternative policy:

Overall impact:

well, you'd be wrong of course - it's a top hit if you use google

I would. Bad policy should be called out, regardless of who proposes it.

is good

Immigration is not a problem. It rises and falls based on our economy's need for labor. That's all good. Just like with the drug war, making it illegal causes problems. It creates criminals, and generates money for organized crime.