Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Building a wall and rounding up immigrants won't decrease the welfare state. It won't reduce crime or prices or terrorism. If your goal is to reduce welfare, you are aiming at the wrong target.
It will raise prices (less cheap labor), taxes (to build the wall and expand the police state to round up everybody) and it will reduce liberty for all while expanding the size and power of the government. Not a good trade in my book. (plus loss of jobs at all the places those immigrants currently spend their money).
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 07-28-2016 at 06:35 PM.
Deporting immigrant welfare cases will because the welfare load, crime, and not bring in Islam will surely decrease terrorism.
The lack of cheap labor will cause the demand for machines to sky rocket, the cost of a border fence is cheaper then the burden of illegal immigration, and allowing the left to mint 30 million new welfare voters or import jihadist will decrease Liberty and grow the state, but hey keep lying.
It must really suck people are no longer buying your lies.
Will it be cheaper? What is the cost of a wall and deporting them all?
http://imgur.com/gallery/KVdSb
$17 billion. Note that is just materials for a wall. That does not include labor or getting materials on site nor costs of staffing and upkeep on a wall. Also keep in mind that cost overruns on a government project can be huge.An Engineer does the Cost Estimate of Trump's Wall
As an interested civil engineer, I decided to do some number crunching to see how incredibly expensive this particular project will be.
Thankfully, engineer Ali F. Rhuzkan already provided material estimates for the wall. I simply took his material estimates, found national average costs, and totaled them up. Let’s break it down step by step. The previous calculations stated that the wall will be built using pre-cast (place and set at indoor facility and transport harden concrete panels to job site) and cast-in-place (wet concrete placed at site) concrete. We will also need to include the steel rebar in the material costs.
Going off of materials estimate we have…
167,272,000 cubic yards of cast-in-place concrete at $93/cubic yard = $15,556,296,000
1,030,000 segments of 10’ pre-cast panels at $17/panel = $17,510,000
2,500,000 tons of steel rebar at $600/ton = $1,500,000,000
Total Material Cost Estimate: $17,073,806,000
Then what about the costs of finding and deporting 11 million illegal immigrants?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaest.../#5afbc95b2b1e
So we are talking more than half a $trillion and shrinking the economy by over $1 trillion.A 2015 study by the American Action Forum, a conservative pro-immigration group, estimates the federal government would have to spend roughly $400 billion to $600 billion to deport 11.3 million undocumented immigrants and prevent future unlawful entry into the U.S. over a 20 year time period.
In order to implement the plan, the study says, each immigrant would have to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and transported to his or her home country.
Mass deportation will burden the economy, the report goes on. Removing all undocumented immigrants would cause the labor force to shrink by 6.4%. As a result, 20 years from now the economy would be nearly 6% or $1.6 trillion smaller than it would be if the immigrants are allowed to stay.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 07-30-2016 at 05:46 PM.
The wall can be built by the National Guard to keep costs down, at most 13 to 20 Billion.
National Data | As I Pointed Out Ten (!) Years Ago, Mass Deportation Would Pay For Itself
http://web.archive.org/web/201104131...documented.pdf
When the Center for American Progress estimated the costs of mass deportation at somewhere between $206 and $230 billion dollars over 5 years you have to come to following outcome.
Mass deportation cost estimates have been inflated beyond reason.
More over the burden imposed over the same 20 year span would be 100-300 Billion a year so the grand total is 2 to 6 Trillion! So once again we save more money to send them back.
More over 20 years from now we would have millions of native born Americas making up the difference and wages will increase, never mind automation/mechanization.
More over a economy exist to serve the nation, and its people, not the other way around.
More automation/ mechanization means fewer jobs. And as for US births- they are not keeping up with deaths. The only reason our population is currently growing is immigration (only 0.7% last year). And immigrant birth rates have been declining as well. There is nothing to feed your economic boom. Without it we will be more like Europe today. Our GDP has been growing faster because our population has been growing faster.
http://fortune.com/2014/03/05/withou...ic-old-europe/
But one fact that often gets overlooked is that the U.S. population has been and continues to grow at a faster rate than its industrialized peers. Take a look now at GDP growth over that same period, this time on a per capita basis:
US GDP per Capita Growth Chart
US GDP per Capita Growth data by YCharts
Here, the competition is much closer. In fact, the U.S. doesn’t even win. On a per capita basis, these countries grow at:
2.0% in the U.K.
1.8% in the U.S.
1.6% in Japan
and 1.2% in France.
Take away America’s faster population growth, and there’s a lot less of a difference between its economic growth compared to its wealthy nation peers. This puts into perspective, for instance, the current debate over health care reform in the U.S. Britain has socialized medicine, a fact that pushes the share of yearly GDP spent by the government close to 50%, yet it has managed to grow its economy faster than the U.S. on a per-capita basis, for which government spending represents a smaller share of GDP.
So, population growth is good for economic growth. This seems intuitive — more people means more economic activity. And in the U.S., population growth is increasingly reliant on immigration. Sure, birth rates are higher in the U.S. than in other wealthy countries, but they are on the decline, and the Census bureau estimates that immigration will be the main driver of population growth within 30 years.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 07-30-2016 at 07:25 PM.
Nothing wrong with a stable population, we only "need" a growing one to pay for the pozni scheme that are entitlements.
More over less immigration will mean higher wages, lower costs of living, not to less welfare spending.
More over we will shore up the numbers with Americans having kids, remember the baby boom? a massive increase in prosperity results in increase in population.
And use the damn quote function, what are you? Afraid?
Nothing zippy? Shocking.
Connect With Us