> It's statistically factual, at least in the USA, that illegal immigrants are more prone to crime
The most legit source I could find for this was fox news: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/16/crime-wave-elusive-data... There are a lot of statistical slights of hand in there and I don't have time to cite them all. Fox News' reputation for being full of shit is well known; if you're unconvinced of that, there's not much I can say that hasn't been said already. From reading the statistics, my takeaway is, "odds are about even, but let's talk about drug cartels"
Is there a better source than that, or is that what you're referring to?
> that immigrant households are more likely to use welfare/EBT/etc.
You're talking about legal immigration now I think? This has nothing to do with "how do you justify the cost of a border wall to keep illegal immigrants out?"
Heh, although maybe you're suggesting we start kicking people out for being broke. That would be a sad state of affairs, if running out of money could get you kicked out of the country.
Anyway, my question still remains of "What's the upside of paying a ton of money for a wall on the border of mexico?" I guess you're saying "crime will go down and economic productivity will go up"? In which case, I just don't see that happening as a result of a wall...
If drug cartels are driving increases in crime (which I think there's evidence of), they can use drones or tunnels (and they are). They'll still kill anyone that is not them. With a wall, you're only keeping out less sophisticated groups that are not going to be adding to the crime statistics. You're keeping out housekeepers, nannies, and day laborers, not gangsters.
As far as legal immigrants not being economically productive, I refer you to the OP titled "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups".
So again, what are we getting for all that money that would be spent on building, staffing, and maintaining a wall?
It is tough to find accurate stats, because the cities with the largest numbers of illegals immigrants, are also the ones that don't check immigration status. You can't know it if you don't track it... https://www.city-journal.org/html/illegal-alien-crime-wave-1...
However, even the studies from places that tend to being "pro-immigration" backhandedly admit that of an estimated population of 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA, 820,000 of them have criminal records, about 7.5% of the population of illegals.
There is a detailed explanation of the data sources and methodology; you can scroll down to find the graphs if you just want to see their results.
Concerning your more specific question of "will the wall work" my view would be "we can build part of it to the new high standard, and see what happens" since it is a multi-year project after all.
> Concerning your more specific question of "will the wall work"
That's not my question. My question is "What are we getting for the money?"
Again, you seem to be suggesting "lower crime". I disagree, but let's play devil's advocate: how much lower do you think crime would be? Now divide that by the cost of the wall. That's your "per unit cost of lowering crime with a wall". What's the answer?
> my view would be "we can build part of it to the new high standard, and see what happens" since it is a multi-year project after all
Haha, I want to know what we're getting in return for $$$ and you just said "let's see what happens...", which makes you sound like you're selling timeshares.
See, this is why I didn't bother to answer your question in detail: despite me supporting with sources my factually accurate statement concerning lower crime, you simply hand-waved it away with no evidence of your own, as I suspected that you would.
Hey man, I wish we could all get along, we're on the same team. I read your sources; they prove nothing. You think immigrants are more prone to crime and we should build a wall on the border of mexico? But you can't begin to quantify what we'd get for it? Then you say shit like, "Well let's just wait and see how it goes, haha..." You're on the wrong side of history, and you don't even know why.
The most legit source I could find for this was fox news: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/16/crime-wave-elusive-data... There are a lot of statistical slights of hand in there and I don't have time to cite them all. Fox News' reputation for being full of shit is well known; if you're unconvinced of that, there's not much I can say that hasn't been said already. From reading the statistics, my takeaway is, "odds are about even, but let's talk about drug cartels"
Is there a better source than that, or is that what you're referring to?
> that immigrant households are more likely to use welfare/EBT/etc.
You're talking about legal immigration now I think? This has nothing to do with "how do you justify the cost of a border wall to keep illegal immigrants out?"
Heh, although maybe you're suggesting we start kicking people out for being broke. That would be a sad state of affairs, if running out of money could get you kicked out of the country.
Anyway, my question still remains of "What's the upside of paying a ton of money for a wall on the border of mexico?" I guess you're saying "crime will go down and economic productivity will go up"? In which case, I just don't see that happening as a result of a wall...
If drug cartels are driving increases in crime (which I think there's evidence of), they can use drones or tunnels (and they are). They'll still kill anyone that is not them. With a wall, you're only keeping out less sophisticated groups that are not going to be adding to the crime statistics. You're keeping out housekeepers, nannies, and day laborers, not gangsters.
As far as legal immigrants not being economically productive, I refer you to the OP titled "Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups".
So again, what are we getting for all that money that would be spent on building, staffing, and maintaining a wall?