Airbrush

The Border Wall or Fence

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If the net number of immigrants is near zero, then: 
The existing system works (you don't need to look at whether it's voluntary or deportation etc)

Well, it depends on the ultimate goal. If the goal is only to maintain immigration levels, and the efflux can be kept constant, then of course. However, if the goal is to  reduce the population having higher efflux vs influx would be desired. Likewise, if influx is curbed the efflux can be also reduced to maintain levels. (And to be clear, DACA recipients were not excluded from the indicated numbers in the analysis).

However, the bigger point is that current levels already indicate a reduced influx and under Obama the efflux has increased. I.e. there is no indication that a wall would really have any meaningful impact on current influx levels.

 

Edit: I think I was overall somewhat unclear in my phrasing. What I was thinking about is that the population levels of unauthorized immigrants were always fluid, and a kind of equilibrium exist between incoming and exiting folks. For years there was a net flow inward. While now there are still incoming unauthorized entries, they are being more than offset by exits. I.e. if using the unauthorized population as measure (and just to be clear, asylum claimants do not fall under this group, regardless what the administration says) we really see the net effect of these two movements.

As such, Ten Oz's mentioning of illegal border crossings, which is a contributing factor to influx of unauthorized immigrants (which is outweighed by simply overstaying visas) is a more direct measure of the entry part of the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well, it depends on the ultimate goal. If the goal is only to maintain immigration levels, and the efflux can be kept constant, then of course. However, if the goal is to  reduce the population having higher efflux vs influx would be desired. Likewise, if influx is curbed the efflux can be also reduced to maintain levels. (And to be clear, DACA recipients were not excluded from the indicated numbers in the analysis).

However, the bigger point is that current levels already indicate a reduced influx and under Obama the efflux has increased. I.e. there is no indication that a wall would really have any meaningful impact on current influx levels.

Trumps new chant:

Build a Wall! Keep then In!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends, in the long run, on whether you want America empty because you deported everyone to Mexico. (That's what happens if the leavers exceeded the joiners to a large enough extent).
 

So, the problem doesn't exist anyway and the wall wouldn't solve it anyway. 

5 billion is a lot of money for that.

Perhaps we should just tell Trump we built the walL.

Tell him the Mexicans paid for it.
And just show him the net immigration figures- which are near zero or even negative.
He will claim credit for this "achievement", and the rest of the world can just carry on as before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trumps new chant:

Build a Wall! Keep then In!

Interestingly, that was one of the results of the initial border security measures. Influx was reduced slightly, efflux was reduced by a large margin, leading to a net increase of folks living unauthorized in the USA.

 

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Tell him the Mexicans paid for it.
And just show him the net immigration figures- which are near zero or even negative.
He will claim credit for this "achievement", and the rest of the world can just carry on as before.

You know what, that does not sound like a bad idea at all. As long he got something to brag about. I mean he does not really care for details too much, does he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may have been mentioned already in this thread.

There's some evidence that a "strong" border does keep immigrants in.

If the border is "open" seasonal workers come in from Mexico when there's work for them.
And when the work isn't there they go home- because the cost of living is lower.
They know they can always come back next year.

But if you make the border "strong" they still cross it because the same financial incentives etc exist.
But now, when the "season" is over, they can't easily get home and they are more concerned about getting back to the US next season; so they stay.

The net result, as CharonY says, is more immigrants in the US.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It depends, in the long run, on whether you want America empty because you deported everyone to Mexico. (That's what happens if the leavers exceeded the joiners to a large enough extent).

It would have a significant economic impact to deport every unauthorized Mexican immigrant. Especially in areas where populations are dwindling they have become an important backbone for the economic well-being of locals. There were quite a few articles describing how crackdowns by ICE have resulted in devastated farming regions and small communities. I mean, even the Trump-run hotels have employed undocumented migrants (talking about hypocrisy). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think the confusion arises as it is not quite clear what you are asking and why.

I was asking if the study included DACA immigrants or not because I was trying to understand some statistics regarding it. Something seemed off to me about the statistics and I was trying to have it clarified.

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

They also accounted for DACA recipients. Those are still not legal residents, i.e. their status does not change by enrolling.

There. This is what I was wondering. Thank you CharonY, for actually answering my question instead of mocking me like TenOz.

Edited by Raider5678

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It may have been mentioned already in this thread.

There's some evidence that a "strong" border does keep immigrants in.

If the border is "open" seasonal workers come in from Mexico when there's work for them.
And when the work isn't there they go home- because the cost of living is lower.
They know they can always come back next year.

But if you make the border "strong" they still cross it because the same financial incentives etc exist.
But now, when the "season" is over, they can't easily get home and they are more concerned about getting back to the US next season; so they stay.

The net result, as CharonY says, is more immigrants in the US.

 

 

The federal government doesn't even own the land required to build Trump's wall (or fence). That is why enimant domain has been discussed. Trump's wall isn't a project which is ready to be acted on. If Congress yeilded to Trump's demands tomorrow the wall would still be years away. So while I agree with the overall thoughts in your discussion with@CharonY I feel your both referencing the wall as if it were closer to a reality than it is. There are currently numerous looming court battles over the 33 milesof fencing Congress approved last March. A wall would be a far greater logistical challenge. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers here can also be viewed in terms of economics, and what a poor return we’d get from such an investment. 

https://voxeu.org/article/border-walls

Quote

This column studies the economic impact of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which built 550 new miles of fence on the US–Mexico border.

<...>

Economic theory suggests that migration will depend on both the costs of migrating and the returns from doing so. The Secure Fence Act was a policy that increased the costs of migrating. While the border wall expansion led to a small change in migration, its direct costs were substantial, and the indirect effects on the US economy were largely negative. Our results suggest that alternative policies that instead change the returns to migrating – for example, by improving economic outcomes in Mexico by reducing trade costs – may be more effective in reducing migration while also benefiting US workers. 

 

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There are currently numerous looming court battles over the 33 milesof fencing Congress approved last March.

And those battles are every bit as much of a white elephant as the wall.

It's time to kill the idea before any more money is wasted on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now