WRDL Debate #2: The Wall: Cold Front vs ncordless- NO CONTEST | Page 6

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Fawlty, Feb 5, 2017.

  1. Fawlty Silver Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    13,437
    Likes Received:
    18,109
    Thanks, ncordless

    @Cold Front, back to you. You can ask up to three questions that you want ncordless to answer. Feel free to put your questions in context or explain your reasoning for asking, but also please keep all questions to one comprehensive post. Thanks!
     
    #101
  2. Cold Front Red Belt

    Cold Front
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,572
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Three Questions for ncordless
    1) You incorrectly write that I admit a cost-benefit analysis does not favor building a wall. I only admit that a wall shouldn't be addressed strictly as a cost-benefit analysis. Such analyses are difficult to evaluate. They juggle numerous competing claims in various disciplines (economics, criminal justice, sociology, education, welfare, ethnic studies, etc.). More importantly for our purposes, delving into the details of such reports are usually the death of an interesting debate.

    But since you have mentioned it as a point in your favor, I ask what you think of a recently-released report by the Center of Immigration Studies which shows that even if only a small fraction of the illegal cross-border human traffic is stopped over the next decade, the cost of the wall will be more than covered.

    2) You have surprisingly taken the tack that the U.S. did not really slow illegal immigration from the 1920s to the 1960s, but instead merely slowed
    legal immigration. But every indication we have shows that all immigration to the U.S. dropped dramatically in this period. I've never seen a single source deny this was true. Enforcement worked. The population of Chinese dropped so dramatically after the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1888 that it wouldn't be until the mid-nineteen-forties, when China was an ally of the U.S. against the Japanese empire and Chinese were given preferential immigration treatment because of the wartime alliance, that their numbers in the U.S. would rebound to where they had been at in 1890. Countless European Jews scrambled to get into the U.S. to escape Hitler in the nineteen-thirties, with most failing to do so. And Mexicans remained a trivial percentage of California's population until the nineteen-sixties (at about the percentage found in Nebraska today), despite many Mexicans coming to American to work in the agricultural industry. Not coincidentally, this era also saw the largest gains in income among the American middle class.

    What source do you have which denies this was the case?

    3) Contrary to your claim, I have not talked much, or definitively, about the possible militarization of the border wall. I'm not sure what that phrase even means. It's true I think that walls should be guarded, but I've never stated I think the U.S. military needs to do the guarding.

    But, philosophically, what difference does it make who mans the watchtower? You use the phrase "militarization" like it's some kind of curse word. But militaries around the world routinely guard their country's borders, even against non-hostile neighbors. It is their territory they are guarding, after all.
     
    #102
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2017
    Seano likes this.
  3. Fawlty Silver Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    13,437
    Likes Received:
    18,109
    Thanks, Cold Front.

    @ncordless, your turn to respond. Followed by your own questions.
     
    #103
  4. JDragon War Room Patriot

    JDragon
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    8,558
    Likes Received:
    6,792
    Location:
    Germany
    This thing is really taking off. Great rebound from both after the rocky start, great work @Cold Front @ncordless
     
    #104
    Gandhi and JudoThrowFiasco like this.
  5. ncordless Red Belt

    ncordless
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    3,931
    Location:
    Portlandia
    Sorry this is taking so long. I was just about done with it last night, but was being lazy and typing directly into the site. Google Chrome beachballed to death, and now I have to redo it all. Will be done this evening.
     
    #105
  6. Cold Front Red Belt

    Cold Front
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,572
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    I understand. It happens. Take your time. Make sure your response is the way you want it before you post it here.
     
    #106
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2017
    JDragon likes this.
  7. ncordless Red Belt

    ncordless
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    3,931
    Location:
    Portlandia
    Danka for the understanding.
     
    #107
  8. ncordless Red Belt

    ncordless
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    3,931
    Location:
    Portlandia



    Sure. The Center of Immigration studies is using some funny math to come up with conclusions they want.


    For starters, they are underestimating the cost of the wall. They use a cost of $12-15 billion. $12 million is what Trump has suggested in the campaign. $15 million is what McConnell has said. Whatever else may be said about them, both are politicians, and therefore expert turd polishers. Department of Homeland Security recently estimated the cost to be $21.6 billion. As you well know, a billion here, a billion there, and all of a sudden we are talking real money. So, even if CIS’s estimate on the cost of each illegal immigrant was correct (it isn’t), the wall would have to stop more like 17.5% of illegal entries over the next decade. And again, that’s if their estimate of the cost per illegal immigrant was accurate. But it is not accurate.


    As the study admits in footnote 2, it’s estimate of border crossers is probably too high. If the number of unique border crossers is more like 1.25 million over the next decade, the wall would have to stop an even higher percentage of border crossers.


    Additionally, as the study readily admits, there is a large variance in several of the formulas they used to estimate illegal entry taxes paid and benefits used. Illegal immigrants are generally not able to access either direct benefits or means-tested benefits, so we are really talking about things like road use, fire depts., etc. There is so much wiggle room in the numbers that they become unsure foundations to base any conclusions from.


    Finally, it should be noted that, because a large percentage of illegal entries are already stopped at the border, when we talk about the effectiveness of the “the wall” we are talking about effectiveness beyond status quo. So, for instance, if current border security stops roughly half of all illegal entries, the wall would really have to stop at least 67.5% of all illegal entries to pay for itself if the rest of CIS’s math ends up being correct.





    You are the one making the claim that illegal immigration went down between the 1920’s and the 1960’s, so it is your burden to carry, not mine. In your previous argument, you posted a bar graph which purports to show that immigration declined. In response, I presented the raw data that shows your graph was really just showing us legal immigration, and did not include illegal immigration. Now, you ask me to assume that you’ve presented evidence to show illegal immigration fell, and want me to show evidence that it didn’t. But it’s still your burden, and the fact that the Chinese were subject to racial exclusion at the beginning of the century, or that Jews being persecuted by Nazis were refused asylum (both, by the way, were moral failings of this country which you seem to want to repeat and expand upon) really has nothing to do with illegal immigration. You have not given good evidence that illegal immigration fell. But I will give a little bit of evidence that illegal immigration kept going.


    Now make no mistake, during the Depression, there were less people of Mexican heritage in and around the border. A big reason for that is that, to our everlasting shame, we committed a mild form of ethnic cleansing. Between 1929-1936, we deported between 500k-2million people of Mexican heritage. Approximately 60% of those people were US citizens. That’s right, we deported American citizens based on their race/ethnicity. And it’s important to remember that because, as much as we like to sanitize the debate, and talk about borders, and cost/benefit, etc., there always has been, and always will be, an undertone of bald-faced bigotry filling in the background of the American/Mexican border.


    However, once the war got going, and we went from not enough jobs to a manpower shortage, the US changed its tune. In 1942, the Bracero Program was instituted which allowed millions of Mexicans to work in the US. This remained in place until 1965. That legislation that you like to cite which stopped our racist immigration policies towards Asia also had a profound effect on Mexican immigration in two areas. First, there had never been a quota on Mexican immigration in the past, and all of a sudden they put a limit on 20k. Second, and most importantly, all those Mexicans who had for years been traveling back and forth across the border legally to work were all of a sudden illegal immigrants. This in turn had the undesired effect of making the border crossing more risky and therefore made it smarter for the Mexican immigrant worker to avoid crossing as much as possible. So instead of living in Mexico and working in the US, there began to be a lot more of crossing and staying.


    The amount of temporary workers crossing the border was much larger than you are letting on, it just wasn’t illegal and they weren’t staying because those laws had not been put in place yet.


    If we were being threatened by a military force, I’d have no problem putting our own military on our border. But we are not facing anything of the sort. If the last few decades have taught us anything, it is that using the military to perform policing work such as in Iraq, or militarizing our police in order to do things like fight the war on drugs, is a terrible policy. It is a terrible policy because it is using a sledgehammer to pound in a thumb tack, and it ends up increasing the violence for all parties involved. Moreover, there’s no good reason to go that direction when better alternatives exist. Basic economic principles show us that creating obstacles for supply won’t stop illegal immigration. As long as there is demand, that demand will be met. Therefore, we should focus on policies that will discourage demand such as a robust e-verify program, rather than using military-style tactics to attempt to suppress supply.
     
    #108
    Gandhi and Quipling like this.
  9. Fawlty Silver Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    13,437
    Likes Received:
    18,109
    Thanks @ncordless, now it's your turn to ask up to 3 questions of @Cold Front.

    So far I don't have any additional questions for the next part, and plan to move to closing arguments unless clarification is needed.
     
    #109
  10. ncordless Red Belt

    ncordless
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    3,931
    Location:
    Portlandia
    1) You've stated over the course of the debate that "the wall" would have a meaningful impact on illegal immigration, but have not really described what you think that impact would be. Given that we both agree that a wall would have no effect on those who overstay their legal entry, and that those overstayers represent roughly half of illegal immigrants. And given that current border security stops a sizable percentage of illegal entries, please provide an estimate of how many illegal immigrants will be stopped per year by building "the wall" and, if you can, provide justification for your estimate. Additionally, please explain why a robust e-verify system that would tamper down demand for illegal immigrants would not stop these illegal entries you think would be stopped by building the wall.

    2) You have been pushing the conversation away from "the wall" and towards immigration generally. Could you please describe what sort of immigration policies you'd like to see put in place? Please include a general idea of how restrictive you'd like immigration quotas to be, and whether you'd include preferences for certain populations over others. If you do want preferences, please describe what sort of laws you'd put in place to achieve those preferences and restrictions.

    3) I have compared your position to other notable anti-immigrant advocates in the past such as the know-nothings, and the klu klux klan. Please explain why your position and motivations are the same as, or different than these previous anti-immigration groups.
     
    #110
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2017
    Quipling and JDragon like this.
  11. Buck Swope Why can't I find a decent corndog?

    Buck Swope
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,313
    Likes Received:
    2,234
    Location:
    On a gravy highway with biscuit wheels.
    Going for blood with question #3.
     
    #111
    JDragon and Limbo Pete like this.
  12. Limbo Pete Super Samoderator Belt

    Limbo Pete
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    12,665
    Likes Received:
    15,814
    Bringing in the Know Nothings gave me a history boner
     
    #112
    Overtures and JDragon like this.
  13. Cold Front Red Belt

    Cold Front
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,572
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Responses to ncordless's Three Questions


    You're engaged in misleading arithmetic. A little less than half of all illegal aliens living in the US came over the border. That's a sizable percentage of a sizable contingent. It's of no consequence, therefore, how many people got stopped at the border. They're not included in that arithmetic of those illegals actually living here.

    Yes, the percentage of illegal aliens who illegally cross the border is getting smaller. Visa overstayers are becoming a larger proportion of all illegals. But the illegal cross-border traffic is getting smaller in part because the fences and walls and additional surveillance which were part of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 are working. Those fences need to be improved and their parameters increased, but they have already helped to reduce cross-border traffic to a small degree. They need to be beefed up.

    And given how easily most illegals can simply travel to the U.S. legally and then overstay their visa without consequence, we can assume that those illegals who make the hazardous and expensive trip across the border do so because they have to.

    Fifteen to twenty percent of those foreign citizens who apply for a U.S. visa are turned down. They are often turned down because they have criminal backgrounds or other questionable background noise that's revealed during the visa application process. Thus the illegals crossing the border are often the worst kind of illegals, the ones who most need to be kept out of the country. Visa overstayers are often college students who decide to stay and work in the U.S. illegally.

    [​IMG]
    Illegals crossing the border are often the worst type of offenders.

    Obviously there are major exceptions to every rule. The 9/11 terrorists, for example, were all visa overstayers. They legally entered the United States with tourist or education visas and then illegally overstayed so they could carry out their plot to attack America.

    [​IMG]
    Mohamed Atta was issued a legal tourist visa and then overstayed it to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

    I would like to see all immigration, including legal immigration of educated persons, reduced to a trickle.

    My ideal policies would include not only a wall, but mandatory E-Verify, the ending of family chain migration, the ending of birthright citizenship, the elimination of the visa lottery, the tracking and removing of visa overstays, lowering the number of work visas issued to foreign citizens, and dramatically reducing the number of refugees allowed into the country. And then I would focus on assimilation for all recent legal immigrants.

    America ought to be for Americans. Our citizenship should be meaningful. Our country needs to be a very selective club in which the members have special privileges and the non-members have none and look on with yearning.

    [​IMG]
    From TR's "America for Americans" speech

    Bringing up the KKK in this context is a red herring. The second iteration of the KKK, founded in 1915, was against immigration, but so was nearly everyone else in America at that time, including the KKK's most vocal opponents. So why focus on the KKK?

    The movement to restrict immigration in the 1920s was broad and wide. It included every segment of the American population. It was supported in the south, the west, the east, and the north. The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act sailed through the House and Senate almost unanimously.
    It passed 69 to 9 in the Senate and had similar support in the House. President Calvin Coolidge then signed it with this excellent comment:

    “We are all agreed, whether we be Americans of the first or of the seventh generation on this soil, that is not desirable to receive more immigrants than can reasonably be assured of bettering their condition by coming here. For the sake both of those who would come and more especially of those already here, it has been thought wise to avoid the danger of increasing our numbers too fast. It is not a reflection on any race or creed. We might not be able to support them if their numbers were too great. In such event, the first sufferers would be the most recent immigrants, unaccustomed to our life and language and industrial methods. We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here.

    “As a nation, our first duty must be those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants.”

    [​IMG]
    "We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American."

    *****​

    The KKK was at most a marginal player in the passage of restrictionist legislation, more an extreme reflection of public sentiment toward immigrants than a cause of it.

    As for the other restrictionists of the 1920s, I love them. They were good men trying their best to save their country. The U.S. at the time faced many of the same problems it faces today: too many immigrants of questionable value were causing trouble in multiple areas. This included terrorism, which at the time was perpetrated not by Muslims from the Middle East but by anarchists from Europe. Read about the 1919 Galleanists bombings to get a flavor of what was going on. (One of those bombs nearly killed FDR and his wife when he was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy living in Washington DC.) Americans decided they had had enough and wanted no more.

    [​IMG]
    Galleanist Bombing on Wall Street in 1919 killed 38 people and wounded hundreds.

    [​IMG]
    The reaction to the Galleanist bombings was swift and universal

    Tryng to portray this widespread restrictionist sentiment in the 1920s as just a reflection of the rise of the KKK is historically misleading.

    As for the Know-Nothings, no group in U.S. history has ever been so misrepresented. They too had good reasons for wanting to restrict immigration. Catholics at the time, for example, in the United States were pro-slavery. Irish neighborhoods filled with immigrants were highly prone to crime. That's why Massachusetts was dominated by Know-Nothings in the eighteen-fifties.

    Here is how one book reviewer describes them:

    "From this period of political upheaval [in 1854], the country came to know the Know-Nothings, a group whose name is still used as short-hand for xenophobic nativism. But the story of the Know-Nothings is far more complex. Yes, they were militantly anti-immigration, but they were also quite progressive on issues of labor rights, opposition to slavery, and the need for more government spending. Given our current age of anxiety, it’s worth dwelling on a few lessons of an earlier period, which has such obvious echoes...."

    "The Know-Nothings’ time at the helm was brief. Many historians have cast their rule as a period of bigotry and incompetence, echoing the Brahmin perspective. Mulkern is more nuanced. The Know-Nothings broke the business stranglehold on legislation. They initiated large infrastructural works, laid in gas lines and sewage systems, and passed ordinances to increase the safety of the railways. They enforced standard weights and measures in markets in order to eliminate fraud. They set up commissions to regulate banks and insurance companies, measures that the businessmen abhorred. They abolished imprisonment for debt, and, at the urging of the Free-Soilers, they forbade state officers to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act. They also built a state hospital for the insane and a state school for mentally disabled children, and raised by a third the state subsidy for the Perkins School for the Blind. In other words, they addressed many of the social problems that had been ignored by the other parties."

    "They also waged a war on foreigners. They tried to raise the residency requirement for naturalization to 21 years. They banned the teaching of foreign languages in public schools and enforced the reading of the King James Bible in schools, a matter that particularly irked the Catholics. They prohibited Catholics from holding state offices and dismissed Irish state workers. In the name of saving public money, they shipped 300 Irish-born wards of the state, all of them destitute or insane, back to Liverpool where they landed on the quay with no one to meet them."

    Progressive on labor rights and slavery? Kind of hard to sell that group as a prototype for the KKK, isn't it?

    Of course the party was different in other parts of the country. The Know-Nothings in the south were pro-slavery, but because the south was very little affected by immigration, which primarily impacted the large northern cities, the Know-Nothings gained few adherents down in Dixie.

    The restrictionism I support has many echoes in the Know-Nothing Party and especially in the restrictionists of the nineteen-twenties. It has none in the KKK.



     
    #113
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
    Thurisaz, hitcher and JDragon like this.
  14. Higus Silver Belt

    Higus
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    10,786
    Likes Received:
    2,933
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
  15. Limbo Pete Super Samoderator Belt

    Limbo Pete
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    12,665
    Likes Received:
    15,814
    That analysis of the Know Nothings in response to the question made me grimace.

    But carry on.
     
    #115
  16. Fawlty Silver Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    13,437
    Likes Received:
    18,109
    Thanks @Cold Front.

    Since we got behind/disorganized in this debate and had to pause it, we'll be moving into closing instead of any moderator/audience followup questions. @ncordless, you're first, followed by @Cold Front.
     
    #116
  17. Buck Swope Why can't I find a decent corndog?

    Buck Swope
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,313
    Likes Received:
    2,234
    Location:
    On a gravy highway with biscuit wheels.
    Thank you to the debaters. Actual political debate. Good job @Fawlty for getting this together and the participants for putting time into this.
     
    #117
  18. DynamicLoosener Grass Fed Free Range Dolce Belt

    DynamicLoosener
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,371
    Likes Received:
    8,670
    Location:
    Bubbles Depo
    people keep wanting me to debate @Clippy

    Im a history major in college and that wont end welll
     
    #118
    Limbo Pete likes this.
  19. Buck Swope Why can't I find a decent corndog?

    Buck Swope
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,313
    Likes Received:
    2,234
    Location:
    On a gravy highway with biscuit wheels.
    Down in a fucking hole........


     
    #119
  20. Gandhi Birdie num nums

    Gandhi
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,438
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Location:
    MTL in ORLANDO

    Question #3

    Literally Hitler
     
    #120

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "fd5733925866a04e50edd70f38dfaa35"
monitoring_string = "603ac9fff68f23709f2a42bf5e29272b"