The Wall WILL Be Built

[Catholic Crusader]

So you pull out one single five-year-old quote from an obscure Republican congressman and you think that somehow supports your idiotic stupid position which border agents are against? Give me a break

 

[Catholic Crusader]

OBAMA’S BORDER PATROL CHIEF PRESSURES DEMOCRAT TO BACK WALL FUNDING IN AD

America First Policies Launches Ad Pressuring Democrat Matt Cartwright to Back Wall Funding
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...emocrat-matt-cartwright-to-back-wall-funding/

The Trump-aligned America First Policies group released an ad Tuesday featuring Obama’s chief of border patrol Mark Morgan to pressure Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA) to back full funding of President Donald Trump’s border wall. “We need more resources, we need the wall,” Morgan said in the ad.
America First Policies, a conservative non-profit organization that advocates for Trump’s America First agenda, launched a new digital and broadcast operation on Tuesday through Friday in Rep. Cartwright’s district pressuring him to support legislation that would provide full funding of the border wall. The ad features Morgan, former President Barack Obama’s chief of border patrol who discusses the chaotic and insecure nature of American’s southern border.

“We need more resources, we need the wall,” Morgan said in the ad. Alex Titus, a spokesman for America First Policies, said in a press release Tuesday:

• Seasoned law enforcement officials like Mark Morgan have been clear from the start of this debate: walls work. Rep. Cartwright should start listening to the experts and his constituents who want him to stop playing partisan politics and support full funding for a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border

 

[Catholic Crusader]

OBAMA’S BORDER PATROL CHIEF PRESSURES DEMOCRAT TO BACK WALL FUNDING IN AD

America First Policies Launches Ad Pressuring Democrat Matt Cartwright to Back Wall Funding
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...emocrat-matt-cartwright-to-back-wall-funding/

The Trump-aligned America First Policies group released an ad Tuesday featuring Obama’s chief of border patrol Mark Morgan to pressure Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA) to back full funding of President Donald Trump’s border wall. “We need more resources, we need the wall,” Morgan said in the ad.
America First Policies, a conservative non-profit organization that advocates for Trump’s America First agenda, launched a new digital and broadcast operation on Tuesday through Friday in Rep. Cartwright’s district pressuring him to support legislation that would provide full funding of the border wall. The ad features Morgan, former President Barack Obama’s chief of border patrol who discusses the chaotic and insecure nature of American’s southern border.

“We need more resources, we need the wall,” Morgan said in the ad. Alex Titus, a spokesman for America First Policies, said in a press release Tuesday:

• Seasoned law enforcement officials like Mark Morgan have been clear from the start of this debate: walls work. Rep. Cartwright should start listening to the experts and his constituents who want him to stop playing partisan politics and support full funding for a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border

Where is Wizard of Shnoz and all his faux counter-agents?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

 

[Catholic Crusader]

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

 

[WizardofOz]

But even $8 billion just isn't enough. So how much will this cost over the next, let's say decade?

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

But even $8 billion just isn't enough. So how much will this cost over the next, let's say decade?

Who are you asking. I did not post that. Why did you put my name on it. I am reporting you.

 

[WizardofOz]

Who are you asking.

Anyone who wants to respond.

I did not post that. Why did you put my name on it.

You're not CatholicCrusader? The timing of your arrival mixed with you posting style seems a bit too coincidental. Sherman will sort it out.

I am reporting you.

You go right ahead. In the meantime, don't start thread after thread on the similar topic of having a crush on Donald Trump. The mods don't like 'one trick pony' posters and that seems to be just about all you came here to post about. Try jumping in already existing threads.

You registered yesterday and have already started 7 threads, all about very similar topics. It's frowned upon.

Other than that, welcome to the jungle :guitar:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Who are you asking. I did not post that. Why did you put my name on it. I am reporting you.

Oh, give it up CatholicCrusader. How on earth you thought that you could come in with a different username a day or so after a ban and carry on with the exact same Trump fawning/multiple thread spamming and people wouldn't "twig" is on you.

Put the "MAGA" cap down. Your denials are embarrassing.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Anyone who wants to respond.



You're not CatholicCrusader? The timing of your arrival mixed with you posting style seems a bit too coincidental. Sherman will sort it out.



You go right ahead. In the meantime, don't start thread after thread on the similar topic of having a crush on Donald Trump. The mods don't like 'one trick pony' posters and that seems to be just about all you came here to post about. Try jumping in already existing threads.

You registered yesterday and have already started 7 threads, all about very similar topics. It's frowned upon.

Other than that, welcome to the jungle :guitar:

Honestly, if you're going to try and sneak back onto a forum under a different name it helps not to be a duplicate of the one you've been banned under...

 

[Kit the Coyote]

But even $8 billion just isn't enough. So how much will this cost over the next, let's say decade?

Estimates from the contractors and other experts that built the sample walls vary. Most experts are saying between $25 to 70 billion to build the wall and another $150 to 750 million annually in maintenance costs. The variances are so wide because no one has literally done a project on this scale in modern times and the specific costs being added due to the terrain, environmental, legal, and land seizure costs are unknown.

Add that it will take at least a decade to build and start having a real impact on the problems it is supposedly addressing.

 

[WizardofOz]

Estimates from the contractors and other experts that built the sample walls vary. Most experts are saying between $25 to 70 billion to build the wall and another $150 to 750 million annually in maintenance costs. The variances are so wide because no one has literally done a project on this scale in modern times and the specific costs being added due to the terrain, environmental, legal, and land seizure costs are unknown.

Add that it will take at least a decade to build and start having a real impact on the problems it is supposedly addressing.

I read this earlier and I like how it really breaks down the cost (materials, land, labor):

Size of the wall: 1,150 miles long; 40 feet high; 10 feet deep into the ground; 1 foot wide Total volume of material: 11.2 million cubic yards Materials: Approximately $8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials); approximately $3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials) Labor: Approximately $12.3 billion (given the labor costs on the original 654 miles of barriers we can assume a conservative 1:1 ratio of materials to labor) Land acquisition: About 60 percent of the border is privately owned land. While the federal government has the power to take privately owned property for public purposes, it must provide “just compensation.” Based on previous purchases from the 2006-2009 wall construction, the cost at most would be $300,000 per mile acquired, or approximately $200 million altogether. In total, the actual physical cost of the wall would be about $25 billion.

I agree that $25 billion is likely a conservative estimate (pun intended) but at least it offers a glimpse into a breakdown of actual cost.

Now, I’ve estimated the cost of the wall to be about $25 billion, but many of the estimates given by other sources include many other factors: how many more or fewer border agents are needed; reduction of “virtual” walls; on-going maintenance; economic costs to border towns; reductions in human trafficking and illegal immigration; reduction in drug trafficking; etc. There are so many factors that “might increase” or “might decrease” that as a statistician, I can tell you it is empirically impossible to calculate all of the unintended consequences – good or bad – that the wall might cause. Anyone saying otherwise is flat out wrong. For example, according to the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), an advocacy group for human rights, the number of illegal immigrants being “apprehended at the U.S. border is near its lowest level since the 1970s.” That is true. But what this statistic doesn’t show is that the number of illegal immigrants apprehended at the border steadily increased until 2000, and only began to decrease substantially in 2006 when the Secure Fence Act came into effect. Here’s another misconception. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

Given that last bit, I really don't want to toss all our eggs in one basket. This needs to be a multi-faceted approach. I think an expensive physical wall with needlessly drain the resources that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I read this earlier and I like how it really breaks down the cost (materials, land, labor):

Size of the wall: 1,150 miles long; 40 feet high; 10 feet deep into the ground; 1 foot wide Total volume of material: 11.2 million cubic yards Materials: Approximately $8.7 billion in concrete (97 percent of the materials); approximately $3.6 billion in steel (3 percent of the materials) Labor: Approximately $12.3 billion (given the labor costs on the original 654 miles of barriers we can assume a conservative 1:1 ratio of materials to labor) Land acquisition: About 60 percent of the border is privately owned land. While the federal government has the power to take privately owned property for public purposes, it must provide “just compensation.” Based on previous purchases from the 2006-2009 wall construction, the cost at most would be $300,000 per mile acquired, or approximately $200 million altogether. In total, the actual physical cost of the wall would be about $25 billion.

I agree that $25 billion is likely a conservative estimate (pun intended) but at least it offers a glimpse into a breakdown of actual cost.

Now, I’ve estimated the cost of the wall to be about $25 billion, but many of the estimates given by other sources include many other factors: how many more or fewer border agents are needed; reduction of “virtual” walls; on-going maintenance; economic costs to border towns; reductions in human trafficking and illegal immigration; reduction in drug trafficking; etc. There are so many factors that “might increase” or “might decrease” that as a statistician, I can tell you it is empirically impossible to calculate all of the unintended consequences – good or bad – that the wall might cause. Anyone saying otherwise is flat out wrong. For example, according to the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), an advocacy group for human rights, the number of illegal immigrants being “apprehended at the U.S. border is near its lowest level since the 1970s.” That is true. But what this statistic doesn’t show is that the number of illegal immigrants apprehended at the border steadily increased until 2000, and only began to decrease substantially in 2006 when the Secure Fence Act came into effect. Here’s another misconception. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

Given that last bit, I really don't want to toss all our eggs in one basket. This needs to be a multi-faceted approach. I think an expensive physical wall with needlessly drain the resources that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

Truth! If you poured all that money into the existing border security systems and infrastructure you would have a LOT bigger and immediate effect on all the things that the wall is supposed to fix. The wall is simply NOT COST EFFECTIVE. It was never about whether walls work or not, is was is the wall the best answer to the problem.

 

[ok doser]

According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 95 percent of drugs enter the United States via container ships or other vessels. So in reality, a wall is going to do absolutely nothing to stop drug trafficking.

drug smugglers have a myriad of ways to get drugs into the country - when one method becomes too costly they switch to another

leave the current wall full of hundred mile long holes, and that path will be more appealing when DEA clamps down on shipping containers

but i don't like the argument that stopping the supply is the best way to address drug smuggling - i'd rather stop demand

 

[WizardofOz]

drug smugglers have a myriad of ways to get drugs into the country - when one method becomes too costly they switch to another

leave the current wall full of hundred mile long holes, and that path will be more appealing when DEA clamps down on shipping containers

They already using ports to smuggle drugs. So, if we stick billions into a wall they’re going to stop using ports? :liberals:

 

[ok doser]

They already using ports to smuggle drugs. So, if we stick billions into a wall they’re going to stop using ports? :liberals:

if we stick billions of dollars into a wall, you think DEA is going to ignore ports?

it's not an either/or

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Estimated cost of illegal aliens to America ranges from $3.3 billion to $15.6 billion A YEAR. In t years the wall pays for itself even going by the lowest estimate.

Or, one could say that we have purchased 5 walls already since Obama was elected, and all we have to show for it is untold rapes and murders instead of a wall.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

if we stick billions of dollars into a wall, you think DEA is going to ignore ports?

it's not an either/or

Actually, it might be if the money and resources being put into building the wall are funds that could have gone to the DEA. And certainly, if those funds were put to into the ports in better scanning and infrastructure that would produce a more immediate effect.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Estimated cost of illegal aliens to America ranges from $3.3 billion to $15.6 billion A YEAR. In t years the wall pays for itself even going by the lowest estimate.

Or, one could say that we have purchased 5 walls already since Obama was elected, and all we have to show for it is untold rapes and murders instead of a wall.

And exactly how does that transfer of funds work? Do you even know where those estimated costs occur? Are they federal expenditures? State expenditures? City/county expenditures? What magic piggy bank are these funds going to fall into to reimburse the federal government? If these are the costs of illegals already here, how does building a wall make them go away? Since net migration right now is negative, wouldn't build a wall make these costs go up or stay level? Not all, indeed according to the federal government most, illegals entering the country currently are not doing so by crossing the border, how much of that cost is not addressed by the wall?