🇳🇱
@Liberty4Masses
As much as I am against the wall it is fair to say it is a lot easier to keep immigrants out when they come by ocean than by land.
While it would be an effective deterrent the real issue is the cost simply doesnt justify the benefits.
Why is no wall better than wall? And on what level is the cost of not building the wall a better deal than the cost of building it? I'm a libertarian, but not an anarchist. One of the few legitimate purposes of government is to be a focal point of our agreement to not accept people who will harm others. The border regards the external side of this. Sure, immigration policy needs work, but that's moot if disregarding it is easy and basically consequence free.
It is pretty simple. How much do illegal immigrants cost us per year? Well they dont and cant receive welfare, they usually work below minimum wage, etc. These effects, while one could argue is abusive to the immigrants themselves, is not costly to the nation, in fact the net effect is it raises GDP rather than lowers is (as any extremely cheap work force would).
So not only would the wall cost us money, but since it would reduce illigal immigration it would also lower GDP. So overall the wall wouldnt save us money from any angle you might look at it.
@leyonhjelm Building a wall around a nation of people is neither an effective nor cost effective way to address crime. Particularly when the vast majority of the people coming across the border illegally do not deal in violent crimes.
@freemo
Citation needed.
@leyonhjelm You are the one claiming it is a major factor to warrent a wall. Where is your citation showing that it is a majority of the people crossing illegally?
@freemo
I never claimed it was a majority, that was your injection.
@leyonhjelm If you do not think it is a majority then there is nothing in my statement you need validated, since my claim was that it was not the majority. That should be a common sense assertion for anyone who has ever known illegal immigrants.
Essentially what i am saying is in order to prove that the wall is beneficial, and that it is a significant concern when illegal immigrants come over due to crime, then you'd have to first prove that the incidence of crime from illegal immigrants is greater than average. What I am saying is that since you did not demonstrate this then your argument has no basis.
@freemo
I don't believe we are even having the same conversation, much less going to agree on what criteria matter.
@freemo
You're thinking in a rather narrow way, and your claims are debatable and fairly subjective as to what counts in strictly cash considerations. Felons who have been deported repeatedly and return only to commit more felonies. The empowering of cartels. The enabling of human traffickers. These are costs. You're thinking of fake money.