The Wall at the Mexican Border

Started by topside, February 16, 2017, 02:09:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

zewazir

Hmmmm, what have I been saying?

Study Finds Trump's Wall Could Pay For Itself More Than 8 Times Over

QuoteIn a blow to left-wing amnesty advocates who say President Donald Trump's proposed border wall would be fiscally irresponsible, a new study out from the Center for Immigration Studies has found that President Donald Trump's proposed border wall only has to stop about nine to 12 percent of all illegal alien border crossers to pay for itself over the next 10 years.

In fact, the amount of money the United States would save by preventing illegal immigration at the U.S. border over next ten years could end up paying for the border wall about eight times over, according to this analysis.

More at:
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/study-finds-stopping-just-12-illegal-aliens-would-pay-border-wall-0

topside

Quote from: patriotlass on February 17, 2017, 06:01:35 AM
??  The concept of a wall is to avoid doing bodily harm.  Though I talk of shooting those caught coming across, and land mines ... a substantial and significant barrier WALL needs to be put in place so that we don't have to use force.  A visual barrier wall, sends a clear message of do not enter.  Posting signs with surveillance while actually leaving the border open, accomplishes little.  There was an organization that collected money and would place American flags all along the border and put in some cameras, but if you don't have the manpower to combat all those coming across; cameras are futile.  It's much more difficult to try to climb over a significant physical barrier than it is to cross over land that is being monitored with cameras. 

Out of curiosity do you work for a robotics or surveillance company?

I've worked in the communications field for 30+ years. Mostly building networked radios that some developer wants to pour into the corner of their products, so I've had products integrated in robotics systems and surveillance systems.

topside

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2017, 11:14:11 AM
How is it he misses the simple fact, that a wall stops vehicles from crossing at high rates of speed.
A wall limits their ability to flee once on our side.

Closing Arguments in Summary – I need to move on from this thread.

I'm addressing the study you found and noted in the other post - thanks for pointing it out.

Again, the laws need to be enforced – one part of the equation.

I don't agree that the wall will be effective long-term – it's a bandaid. But it's the most popular method of stopping illegals at this point. It will be helpful short-term, but the smugglers have enough money they will escalate. The other illegals will follow unless the US spends again and again.

Treating the problem as a War on Drugs and Human Trafficking will allow the necessary force to turn back or kill those who break the law at our borders. There will be an impact on the percentage of US civilians that live near the borders - they will have to move away from the DMZ. Fortunately, a large part of the border is arid and unpopulated. There are always unfortunate costs in fighting wars and some of these (like land loss) can be somewhat compensated.

A side effect is that we continue to progress in how to fight the types of wars where the enemy hides behind the civilians – both technical progress and technique progress. We double down on the return on the extensive investment.

Your story about the pedophile is emotionally wrenching - I want to stop them and all illegals. I just don't believe that the wall will work over the long term and that there are other ways that will move faster if we get more serious. Enforcement can start tomorrow. Putting more surveillance and man-power on can happen in days (maybe 60 - 90). Over a year time-frame, put up towers with manned surveillance, arm the guards in some ways (options) and stop the crossings of any kinds. Of course, the bad guys will still respond but our military is trained at stopping attacks – protecting our country. If the pedophile tries to cross, he'll bleed out in a field somewhere. That's still too good for him, but I'd settle for that.

But, under the current tides, you'll get your wall. So we'll see what happens.

Solar

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 02:04:24 PM
Closing Arguments in Summary – I need to move on from this thread.

I'm addressing the study you found and noted in the other post - thanks for pointing it out.

Again, the laws need to be enforced – one part of the equation.

I don't agree that the wall will be effective long-term – it's a bandaid. But it's the most popular method of stopping illegals at this point. It will be helpful short-term, but the smugglers have enough money they will escalate. The other illegals will follow unless the US spends again and again.

Treating the problem as a War on Drugs and Human Trafficking will allow the necessary force to turn back or kill those who break the law at our borders. There will be an impact on the percentage of US civilians that live near the borders - they will have to move away from the DMZ. Fortunately, a large part of the border is arid and unpopulated. There are always unfortunate costs in fighting wars and some of these (like land loss) can be somewhat compensated.

A side effect is that we continue to progress in how to fight the types of wars where the enemy hides behind the civilians – both technical progress and technique progress. We double down on the return on the extensive investment.

Your story about the pedophile is emotionally wrenching - I want to stop them and all illegals. I just don't believe that the wall will work over the long term and that there are other ways that will move faster if we get more serious. Enforcement can start tomorrow. Putting more surveillance and man-power on can happen in days (maybe 60 - 90). Over a year time-frame, put up towers with manned surveillance, arm the guards in some ways (options) and stop the crossings of any kinds. Of course, the bad guys will still respond but our military is trained at stopping attacks – protecting our country. If the pedophile tries to cross, he'll bleed out in a field somewhere. That's still too good for him, but I'd settle for that.

But, under the current tides, you'll get your wall. So we'll see what happens.
What is your issue with a wall? You argue that it's a temporary fix, but last time I looked, every place on earth where an area needs protecting, a wall or fence is a first line barrier followed by dogs, guards, surveillance etc.
Your home is a perfect example. You have doors, right, locks, windows that open and close, even screens, correct?
Why do you have screens? Why not take them down, then you can spend all your time chasing down bugs and throwing them back outside, and hope they don't return.

Are you even remotely seeing how ludicrous your argument against a barrier is?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

topside

Quote from: Solar on February 17, 2017, 02:11:09 PM
What is your issue with a wall? You argue that it's a temporary fix, but last time I looked, every place on earth where an area needs protecting, a wall or fence is a first line barrier followed by dogs, guards, surveillance etc.
Your home is a perfect example. You have doors, right, locks, windows that open and close, even screens, correct?
Why do you have screens? Why not take them down, then you can spend all your time chasing down bugs and throwing them back outside, and hope they don't return.

Are you even remotely seeing how ludicrous your argument against a barrier is?

So you are saying that we use all the modes to protect ourselves. Yes - that's true. It applies to the wall if we can afford to put multiple modes in-play. I like the analogy that the illegals problem is like a bug problem. It's not so applicable for the War on Drugs, Human Trafficking, and Terror - the bugs have lot of many and can fight back in those cases.

So here's what might happen. We'll build a wall - the data (and opinions of you and others) says it will pay for itself if only a small percentage are turned back. It will be hard to maintain and man. So if we find that the wall is not effective enough on it's own, then we'll add the other modes of protection to shore up any breaches and reduce long-term costs. I can get behind that concept.

So you may want to know what changed on my end? Your analogy resonated and made me ask why I was so against the wall. My main argument was high cost and likely ineffectiveness. You addressed the cost in ways I was unaware of. And I couldn't argue with your house protection analogy - when the walls and locks aren't enough, you add other protection modes.

I still think escalating to the War on Drugs / Trafficking / Terror works to help too. It impacts those that live near the border. That's probably much to far for the current administration can reach for. But the US cost to deal with those issues is also enormous. There is a lot of funds we could recover if drugs didn't make it in. But that's another thread for another day.

Thanks (to all) for hanging with me through this as one of my first thread attempts.  Do you close these when they die down or just let them hang? What's protocol?

Solar

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 02:38:25 PM
So you are saying that we use all the modes to protect ourselves. Yes - that's true. It applies to the wall if we can afford to put multiple modes in-play. I like the analogy that the illegals problem is like a bug problem. It's not so applicable for the War on Drugs, Human Trafficking, and Terror - the bugs have lot of many and can fight back in those cases.
Jeez, all the more reason to build a wall!

QuoteSo here's what might happen. We'll build a wall - the data (and opinions of you and others) says it will pay for itself if only a small percentage are turned back. It will be hard to maintain and man. So if we find that the wall is not effective enough on it's own, then we'll add the other modes of protection to shore up any breaches and reduce long-term costs. I can get behind that concept.
BS! Who says that bull shit? I know who, the libs!
Of course the wall isn't effective on its own. But if you're in a firefight and the only protection around is a tree, you use it to protect yourself, and that;'s what the wall is, the first line of defense, then you have radios to call in support, drones to keep a close eye, maybe even weaponized, or in the least, fire tracking devices, netting over individuals, the skies the limit.
Quote
So you may want to know what changed on my end? Your analogy resonated and made me ask why I was so against the wall. My main argument was high cost and likely ineffectiveness. You addressed the cost in ways I was unaware of. And I couldn't argue with your house protection analogy - when the walls and locks aren't enough, you add other protection modes.

I still think escalating to the War on Drugs / Trafficking / Terror works to help too. It impacts those that live near the border. That's probably much to far for the current administration can reach for. But the US cost to deal with those issues is also enormous. There is a lot of funds we could recover if drugs didn't make it in. But that's another thread for another day.
What is referred to as the war on drugs has been an obvious failure considering we still have drugs, but that's no reason to stop punishing those bringing them into the country.

QuoteThanks (to all) for hanging with me through this as one of my first thread attempts.  Do you close these when they die down or just let them hang? What's protocol?
Nope, it's here forever. :biggrin:

This was one of the trains headed for our border. Just one, there were many more.


What maintenance?


Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Billy's bayonet

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 01:02:40 PM
I've worked in the communications field for 30+ years. Mostly building networked radios that some developer wants to pour into the corner of their products, so I've had products integrated in robotics systems and surveillance systems.

Just a thought, I've worked in Law Enforcement and Private security for more than 30 years, often alongside the tech people, I saw the advances in technology that greatly improved and made more effective enforcement. But here is one thing that "wire heads" (I say that with affection   :thumbup:  ) sometimes don't get. Technology is just a tool, for a tool to be efficient, you still have to have a human being behind it to apply it.

As I have said previously in my previous post about "walls", they are only as good as the men who man them, the technology will only serve us so well but unless we have the will, the effort to truly rid out country of illegals, the "heart" to do it, all the best whistles and bells you can put up mean squat.

Another thing about a wall (which I support) is that it is a PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIER. It sends a message, a sorely needed one...STAY OUT....You are NOT wanted or welcomed here. The mere fact that Trump WILL BUILD THE WALL will prevent a lot of people from even attempting to cross the border.  This resolve has already created a "panic" among illegals, fueled by the sensationalist Media, many are looking to the leave the US or not even try coming here.

Paying for the wall could be accomplished by simply taxing the weekly or monthly remittence to source countries for the illegals, millions upon millions go out every payday as they send money "back home", tax it at 20% and see how fast it adds up. Then again, I'd reduce or withhold some of the foreign aid to various source countries and apply it to "the wall".
UP the fee's on visa's, work permit's and even put up a toll at entrances along the "Wall".
Evil operates best when under a disguise

WHEN A CRIME GOES UNPUNISHED THE WORLD IS UNBALANCED

WHEN A WRONG IS UNAVENGED THE HEAVENS LOOK DOWN ON US IN SHAME

IMPEACH BIDEN

Ms.Independence

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 01:02:40 PM
I've worked in the communications field for 30+ years. Mostly building networked radios that some developer wants to pour into the corner of their products, so I've had products integrated in robotics systems and surveillance systems.

That's what I kind of thought.  I am curious though as to how or why you don't think a barrier wall is necessary??  A barrier wall is a physical and psychological symbol of "DO NOT ENTER".  The secondary tools of robotics, drones, cameras, manpower, etc. along the wall won't be as effective without a barrier wall.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

topside

Quote from: Ms.Independence on February 17, 2017, 07:31:20 PM
That's what I kind of thought.  I am curious though as to how or why you don't think a barrier wall is necessary??  A barrier wall is a physical and psychological symbol of "DO NOT ENTER".  The secondary tools of robotics, drones, cameras, manpower, etc. along the wall won't be as effective without a barrier wall.

I'm not sure it's true that other approaches wouldn't be effective enough without building the 1600 mile wall - a huge feat. Although the Great Wall of China was 5500 miles long - so there is president on the feasibility of such a long wall. But there is no question that once the investment is made, the wall will be a psychological deterrent.

Clearly laws need to be enforced - it's hard to see families get broken up but that's the cost when you just ignore the laws. The previous administrations should be the ones taking the heat for the broken families because they let them form by ignoring the laws.

Based on data others on this forum provided, it appears that the financial numbers support throwing the wall and other measures at the immigrant problem. I would just add to the approach re-declaring it a war on drugs, trafficking, and terror then allowing use of lethal force as required - basically a military operation - a major deterrent for the non-bad illegals and a necessary response to the bad guys.



zewazir

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 02:38:25 PM
So you are saying that we use all the modes to protect ourselves. Yes - that's true. It applies to the wall if we can afford to put multiple modes in-play. I like the analogy that the illegals problem is like a bug problem. It's not so applicable for the War on Drugs, Human Trafficking, and Terror - the bugs have lot of many and can fight back in those cases.

So here's what might happen. We'll build a wall - the data (and opinions of you and others) says it will pay for itself if only a small percentage are turned back. It will be hard to maintain and man. So if we find that the wall is not effective enough on it's own, then we'll add the other modes of protection to shore up any breaches and reduce long-term costs. I can get behind that concept.

So you may want to know what changed on my end? Your analogy resonated and made me ask why I was so against the wall. My main argument was high cost and likely ineffectiveness. You addressed the cost in ways I was unaware of. And I couldn't argue with your house protection analogy - when the walls and locks aren't enough, you add other protection modes.

I still think escalating to the War on Drugs / Trafficking / Terror works to help too. It impacts those that live near the border. That's probably much to far for the current administration can reach for. But the US cost to deal with those issues is also enormous. There is a lot of funds we could recover if drugs didn't make it in. But that's another thread for another day.

Thanks (to all) for hanging with me through this as one of my first thread attempts.  Do you close these when they die down or just let them hang? What's protocol?
What I do not understand is your assumption that building a wall somehow indicates that the plan is to totally depend on that wall to keep illegal border crossers out - be they illegal immigrants or drug smugglers or what have you.  Why do you assume that?  Of course we will continue to patrol the borders. Plus there are plans in place to start properly enforcing other immigration laws, including penalizing people who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. In short, the overall plan is to hit the situation from all sides. You say patrolling the wall will be expensive, but I also call question to that conclusion. Patrolling a wall can be accomplished in a similar manner to patrolling an open border - only doing so will be significantly easier because patrols can concentrate on known weak areas of the wall, whereas currently the entire open border is one 1500 mile long weak area. It will be cheaper to maintain surveillance sensors and cameras because they will be protected by that same wall. And unless you are anticipating crossers blowing up large sections of the wall, I do not see how the wall itself will be all that expensive to maintain. Again - how did you arrive at the conclusion it will be expensive to maintain?

Now, if I were in charge of planning, I would set up 20 or so patrol stations approximately equidistant from each other, each station containing a surveillance team who watch for data coming from the wall's sensors, and two fast response teams. Every station will be manned 24/7. Each fast response team would be comprised of 3 patrol officers and a pilot who would be responsible for a fast attack helicopter. The set up will be arranged so all teams will be less than 20 minutes away from any area of their patrol responsibility. Sensors in the wall go off, The surveillance officers conclude significant human activity approaching the wall from the south, and the response team jumps in their copter and are on scene before the crossers even get to the top of the wall, let alone over it. If the crossers insist on coming over, they get tased as soon as they reach the ground and unceremoniously dumped back on the other side. If they are smugglers, as opposed to immigrants, they get a ride to the pokey while their stuff is dumped to the desert winds.  A year or so of that, and you can be guaranteed attempts will dwindle to a small fraction of what we see today.

The biggest cost of enforcing immigration laws deals with the deportation process. We have the expense of arresting illegals, detaining them, legal costs of determining their status and sentencing to deportation, further detainment costs, transportation costs, etc. etc. etc.  That is why the costs of building the wall can be compensated for by only reducing the numbers that come into the US illegally by a relatively small percentage. So the idea is to keep them from entering in the first place, and a wall is the best avenue we have for slowing the flow.

As others pointed out, a wall is a psychological barrier as well as a real physical barrier.  Just having that wall there will cause a lot of wannabes to call off any attempt as a bad deal.  I'd be willing to estimate that factor alone would reduce attempts by more than the percentage needed to make the wall pay for itself.  Add in the effects of patrols being more able to catch people in the process of entering - since the wall will slow them down just getting over the wall, AND put them on foot once they're across, and we're looking at LEAST a 50% drop in successful illegal crossings. Then add in new enforcement orders that diminish those willing to hire them once they get here, and we lose another 10% or so. Fast track the deportation process, and we drop another 10%.

But without the wall, none of the other factors will have nearly as big an impact, because it will still be way too easy to slip in and avoid the law.

As such, building the wall is quite likely to end up being one of the wisest expenditures we have made since the Louisiana Purchase.

Ms.Independence

Quote from: topside on February 17, 2017, 08:27:29 PM
I'm not sure it's true that other approaches wouldn't be effective enough without building the 1600 mile wall - a huge feat. Although the Great Wall of China was 5500 miles long - so there is president on the feasibility of such a long wall. But there is no question that once the investment is made, the wall will be a psychological deterrent.

Clearly laws need to be enforced - it's hard to see families get broken up but that's the cost when you just ignore the laws. The previous administrations should be the ones taking the heat for the broken families because they let them form by ignoring the laws.

Based on data others on this forum provided, it appears that the financial numbers support throwing the wall and other measures at the immigrant problem. I would just add to the approach re-declaring it a war on drugs, trafficking, and terror then allowing use of lethal force as required - basically a military operation - a major deterrent for the non-bad illegals and a necessary response to the bad guys.

I don't have the figures or research at hand anymore, but if you consider that amount of money that we have thrown at supporting illegals in this country for years (at least the last decade), I can almost guarantee that the figure far exceeds what the wall is going to cost.  Also, remember innocent lives of American citizens have been taken by illegals; you can't put a cost on that.  I believe that a physical wall will also deter the drugs and arms trafficking -- draining the swamp will also be a great help. 

Also remember having a physical wall IS a barrier between the 'illegals' the Mexican cartel and any sort of U.S. military or surveillance operation.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

topside

Fox story relevant to this topic ...
Timely report:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/21/texas-border-residents-mixed-over-whether-need-finished-wall.html

There is a video ... below is the text minus some of the embedded stuff. Wow, a report that actually considered what the residents think. Not that popular opinion should drive it - we need to enforce the laws. But the data is interesting to look through.

But I would (now) ask those that don't see the need for the wall ... why not both. Why not solve this problem with all the tools available ... and affordable given the current costs.

If President Trump gets his way, there will soon be a complete border wall in Hudspeth County, Texas -- and while not everybody claims they need it, most do say it could be a big help for law enforcement.

"It will make it easier for border patrol to catch illegals. And I'm not opposed to immigration, but I want legal immigration," said Craige Miller, who's lived in Hudspeth County for 65 years and whose farm sits directly on the border.

The Millers have a family farm in Fort Hancock. Half of it has a border fence, half does not. The Millers have goats, horses, and grow cotton. The family does a lot of the work with the help of a small staff.

According to the Millers, workers set up five miles of fence in their backyard during the Bush administration and it's helped deter illegal immigration. They wish the wall was completed during that project. Their biggest concern is drug trafficking.

"It stopped the illegals passing through considerably," said Miller.

The numbers back him up. According to Border Patrol data for the El Paso sector, which covers El Paso County, Hudspeth County and New Mexico, there were more than 122,000 Border Patrol apprehensions in 2005 and 2006. The number dropped sharply in 2007 to 75,464, and again in 2008 to 30,312, bottoming out at 9,678 in 2012. All of those areas have fencing.

Fencing in Texas begins in El Paso and continues 40 miles outside of town until it ends near Tornillo. There's an 11-mile gap until it picks up again for five miles in Fort Hancock, right at the Millers' farm. After the five miles in Fort Hancock there's a 25-mile gap and the fencing goes on and off down the border.

For much of Hudspeth County, the only thing between the U.S. and Mexico is the border patrol, and some people think that's enough.

"It doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on a physical barrier and then have the upkeep and the maintenance when it's totally unnecessary because there's very little activity," said Silvestre Reyes, former chief of El Paso Border Patrol.

But while the Millers are for the creation of the wall, what they ultimately want is stronger border security. They believe that can be done with more border patrol enforcement.

"I think there should be a wall in certain places. In the metropolitan areas where they're highly populated," said Jim Ed Miller. "But out here in the middle of nowhere, we don't need the wall; we need people on the levy, on the border, guarding it."

Solar

Quote from: topside on February 21, 2017, 02:35:21 PM
Fox story relevant to this topic ...
Timely report:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/21/texas-border-residents-mixed-over-whether-need-finished-wall.html

There is a video ... below is the text minus some of the embedded stuff. Wow, a report that actually considered what the residents think. Not that popular opinion should drive it - we need to enforce the laws. But the data is interesting to look through.

But I would (now) ask those that don't see the need for the wall ... why not both. Why not solve this problem with all the tools available ... and affordable given the current costs.

If President Trump gets his way, there will soon be a complete border wall in Hudspeth County, Texas -- and while not everybody claims they need it, most do say it could be a big help for law enforcement.

"It will make it easier for border patrol to catch illegals. And I'm not opposed to immigration, but I want legal immigration," said Craige Miller, who's lived in Hudspeth County for 65 years and whose farm sits directly on the border.

The Millers have a family farm in Fort Hancock. Half of it has a border fence, half does not. The Millers have goats, horses, and grow cotton. The family does a lot of the work with the help of a small staff.

According to the Millers, workers set up five miles of fence in their backyard during the Bush administration and it's helped deter illegal immigration. They wish the wall was completed during that project. Their biggest concern is drug trafficking.

"It stopped the illegals passing through considerably," said Miller.

The numbers back him up. According to Border Patrol data for the El Paso sector, which covers El Paso County, Hudspeth County and New Mexico, there were more than 122,000 Border Patrol apprehensions in 2005 and 2006. The number dropped sharply in 2007 to 75,464, and again in 2008 to 30,312, bottoming out at 9,678 in 2012. All of those areas have fencing.

Fencing in Texas begins in El Paso and continues 40 miles outside of town until it ends near Tornillo. There's an 11-mile gap until it picks up again for five miles in Fort Hancock, right at the Millers' farm. After the five miles in Fort Hancock there's a 25-mile gap and the fencing goes on and off down the border.

For much of Hudspeth County, the only thing between the U.S. and Mexico is the border patrol, and some people think that's enough.

"It doesn't make sense to spend millions of dollars on a physical barrier and then have the upkeep and the maintenance when it's totally unnecessary because there's very little activity," said Silvestre Reyes, former chief of El Paso Border Patrol.

But while the Millers are for the creation of the wall, what they ultimately want is stronger border security. They believe that can be done with more border patrol enforcement.

"I think there should be a wall in certain places. In the metropolitan areas where they're highly populated," said Jim Ed Miller. "But out here in the middle of nowhere, we don't need the wall; we need people on the levy, on the border, guarding it."
If you build a dam on a river, and complete 99.9% of it, leaving only a tiny spot left open, what do you suppose the water is going to do?
People, like that of water, are a force to be reckoned with when they have an agenda to complete. Keep in mind the term, "Least Path of Resistance"...
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Ms.Independence

It is nearly unanimous in here; build the darn wall!!! I don't care about cost.  I care about keeping out illegals so that Americans are no longer subjected to the rapes, murders, burglaries, and the economic havoc that they inflict on our country.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

redbeard

Quote from: zewazir on February 17, 2017, 10:53:34 AM


And shifting the argument to focus on those already in the US does not help your point at all.  Obviously building a wall is not going to do anything about those who have already entered the US illegally. Frankly, enforcing the laws against employing those people won't do much about those already here, either.  You think they're going to take the attitude "Well, can't get work, so may as well go back to Mexico!"  Ummm ...... I don't think so. We'll just end up with a whole lot more of them on welfare sucking up taxpayer dollars. Bottom line: dealing with those already here is a whole nuther topic from the purpose of building a wall.  The wall is to prevent us facing a situation where we are trying to deal with 50 million illegals a decade from now.
A interesting fact I read about a couple weeks ago is that most of the illegals that were released were released into someone's care! That person had to show they had the resources to feed and house these people but more then that they had to sign paperwork taking responsibility for them! These people could very well be on the hook to pay back the government for any welfare, doctors cost and food stamps! Under Obama they didn't have a care in the world signing this because they knew he would not inforce it! Now comes Trump!! Knowing how the Donald is about money you think he will let them of the hook?
I can see A lot of libs waking up one morning to find IRS liens on their property! I wonder if there is enough there to make the Libs pay for the Wall?