1. Fresh off her huge victory at UFC Fight Night 105, Randa Markos returns to Sherdog for her second LIVE Q&A, FRIDAY at 3:00 PM EST. Check it out here.
    Dismiss Notice

WRDL Debate #2: The Wall: Cold Front vs ncordless | Page 6

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

  1. Fawlty Red Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    8,893
    Likes Received:
    9,838
    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 Black Belt

    Cold Front
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,024
    Likes Received:
    737
    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
  3. Fawlty Red Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    8,893
    Likes Received:
    9,838
    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:
    7,682
    Likes Received:
    5,164
    Location:
    Germany
    This thing is really taking off. Great rebound from both after the rocky start, great work @Cold Front @ncordless
     
    #104
    JudoThrowFiasco likes this.
  5. ncordless Red Belt

    ncordless
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    9,064
    Likes Received:
    3,800
    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
    Fawlty and Cold Front like this.
  6. Cold Front Black Belt

    Cold Front
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    7,024
    Likes Received:
    737
    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:
    9,064
    Likes Received:
    3,800
    Location:
    Portlandia
    Danka for the understanding.
     
    #107
  8. ncordless Red Belt

    ncordless
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Messages:
    9,064
    Likes Received:
    3,800
    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
  9. Fawlty Red Belt

    Fawlty
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2015
    Messages:
    8,893
    Likes Received:
    9,838
    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:
    9,064
    Likes Received:
    3,800
    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 no-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
  11. Buck Swope Why can't I find a decent corndog?

    Buck Swope
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    791
    Location:
    On a gravy highway with biscuit wheels.
    Going for blood with question #3.
     
    #111
    Limbo Pete likes this.
  12. Limbo Pete Super Samoan Belt

    Limbo Pete
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    9,470
    Likes Received:
    8,386
    Bringing in the Know Nothings gave me a history boner
     
    #112

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "fd5733925866a04e50edd70f38dfaa35"
monitoring_string = "603ac9fff68f23709f2a42bf5e29272b"