Donald Trump’s immigration tab: $166 billion

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: ketsuko

Can you not stay on topic?

It is relevant to the topic. You are not against spending when it suits your political aims.

In this case, my point is that the spending is NOT the issue - it's what the money would be spent for that is. A more appropriate topic for you would be to defend the illegals, but you wont' because you know how unpopular that would be.

a reply to: ketsuko

Sorry Donald Trump, Mexico Says It Will Not Pay for Border Wall

ETA: These costs are ASIDE FROM THE WALL.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

And how much is it costing us to basically raise every single illegal child from cradle on up? And subsidize their parents? And subsidize the entire Mexican economy since they send money home? And how much do our prison systems cost us since so many of the convicts are illegals?

And how many Americans are out of work because there is an illegal standing there doing that job ... and sending the wages back to Mexico/Guatemala/El Salvador/et. al. rather than spending them in the US? Then how of those people do we subsidize in the same way we subsidize the illegals?

And then there is the very real depression of wages that occurs because illegals work for less. Then Americans must either also work for less in those jobs or look for work elsewhere, and when the wages depress too far ... Guess what? We end up subsidizing them!

That all adds up and it is an enormous drain on the economy as it is.

But, yes, let's complain about the costs of trying to fix some of that situation.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: ketsuko

Can you not stay on topic?

It is relevant to the topic. You are not against spending when it suits your political aims.

In this case, my point is that the spending is NOT the issue - it's what the money would be spent for that is. A more appropriate topic for you would be to defend the illegals, but you wont' because you know how unpopular that would be.

It is entirely IRRELEVANT. The topic, once again, is Trump's plan for the issue of immigration. But apparently the words conservative and spending distracted you.

And again, Obama and the ACA and your snide comments about way I did or did not vote, what my spending wishes for the country are, and my stance on illegal immigration, none of which you have the first clue about, have what to do with any of that?

Take your ad hom derailing BS elsewhere if you cannot address the topic.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

So you are putting the same weight on someone elses words?

Oh Mexico said they WONT build it, so they arent going to do it.

Who is right to you then? This man sucking hot air, or that man blowing wind?

You also failed to understand that Donald just threw out the first set of terms, Mexico WILL negotiate at some level or they will be cut off. Do you think they want to deal with their citizens that hate their country so much that they are leaving in droves to come here?

You see, Americans arent flooding into Mexico, so they really dont have any major leverage to hold, the mexican guy is just blowing smoke so as not to sound weak and to oppose the 'republican', but if this seriously comes to fruition then I would bet money that Donald negotiates a deal for a wall and we will NOT pay for the entire thing.

Wont you be glad to realize some savings?

I guess you are the type of person who always pays full asking price no matter what or walk away entirely. Donald is a businessman and knows how to use possessions and leverage to his advantage to save money, I am all for saving money when possible, and that means negotiating EVERY deal to some degree.

You dont seem to have any real substance or leg to stand on. You are basically saying a master deal maker and negotiator has no shot at this, but no reason as to why he wont succeed, and no comment about realizing savings on the job if we dont have to pay full price for a wall.

You also fail to realize that in actuality either way Mexico will pay for the wall willingly or unwillingly.

If they do it on their own, it would obviously come out of their pocket, but they would receive financial aid still, defense weapons, economic partners, etc. If they dont do it willingly, we cut ALL of those freebie and cheap goodies, save money by not giving it to them and then divert that money to the wall. So we would use the money we would be sending to Mexico to build the wall they didnt want to build. Guess what that does to mexico? They are stuck with their citizens in wanting a better government and opportunity and NOTHING from the US, no money, no protection, no nothing.

Do you REALLY think that Mexico wants us an enemy? Hell, they dont want to lose the protection that we provide. We are the strongest nation on the planet and spend heavily on defense, they dont want to lose their big body guard up here. I guarantee it.

So remind me again of what Mexico has to offer, and how they have leverage in this situation. They dont, and thats why Donald is right. For too many years we havent had a good deal maker in office and we are always being handled the highest bills for the most ridiculous things in return. Its time we saved a little money and got some good things in return.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Hypocrisy.

a reply to: phishfriar47

They said they aren't paying. They see no need for it. Those are the words of record today, calling out his grandiose plans and claims. So, in this crapshoot for our country, for the I'm going with that for now and not the words of a campaign promise or statement that may or may not happen. Yes.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy on the conservative side that is supporting this man who has a track record of being fast and loose with money...which would be our money were he elected? Yes I see hypocrisy there.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Even in the article Donald explains that he has the leverage and the Mexican guy is just complaining that Donald doesnt understand the Mexcian people.

It has nothing to do with the people. It has to do with what we provide to them and how much money is lost to mexico because of the ridiculous policy we have with our borders and the illegal activity that is going on.

Maybe you need to go find the information detailing what the United States government provides to mexico and what we receive in return. We OWN the leverage and Donald knows it, not everyone else is going to recognize that, so what makes you think the Mexican President should see it? Obviously he doesnt if he thinks Donald is wrong, and last I check, when did anyone ever listen to Mexico on any type of world stage? Again another instance of ZERO leverage.

Read your own article, Donald clearly knows we have the upper hand on this, any way you slice it, he even says so. 100% gonna happen, not even 98% likely, but 100% they would pay for it. I believe that, if you look at who has what on the table.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

So basically you are choosing one mans word over the other, even though one has a track record for making deals and even writing the book on the topic. I see your lack of logic there.......gotcha.

You do realize that of course Mexico doesnt WANT a wall, that doesnt benefit them at all. Then they have to deal with their own citizens, terrible economy (why are they all leaving to come here), persecutions, drug lords, and the drugs. Of course they dont want to see one built. That doesnt mean we dont need it, and it apparently is resonating strongly with the US citizens since it is remaining a large talking point, so where you see irrelevance just shows how out of touch you are on this situation.

a reply to: phishfriar47

The costs outline in the article are what it would cost to implement the plan as he has outlined it on the off chance that some of that cost could be recovered in the ways he has noted.

It seems to me that is is a typically the kind of plan that alleged conservatives question and attack with vigor. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Recent examples come readily to mind.

Trump once had those same glorious delusions about his negotiating and dealing powers on all the companies he worked with and got kicked off the boards of too.

I see a pattern here, and if you don't, and if you think this would make a good president, vote for him.

originally posted by: phishfriar47
a reply to: ~Lucidity

So basically you are choosing one mans word over the other, even though one has a track record for making deals and even writing the book on the topic. I see your lack of logic there.......gotcha.

You do realize that of course Mexico doesnt WANT a wall, that doesnt benefit them at all. Then they have to deal with their own citizens, terrible economy (why are they all leaving to come here), persecutions, drug lords, and the drugs. Of course they dont want to see one built. That doesnt mean we dont need it, and it apparently is resonating strongly with the US citizens since it is remaining a large talking point, so where you see irrelevance just shows how out of touch you are on this situation.

At the current time all we have is words. One man is standing up and making grand plans and claims and another is refuting that. Only you can decide which to believe.

How about some facts and figures to back up the theory from the opposite side. Ones that counter the numbers in the OP and various other sources that break down the actual costs of the plan. Show us the numbers from his side that break down exactly how he will offset those costs.

He wants to cut foreign aid payments to them. Where are the numbers?

I don't have any issues with the idealistic points of the plan, which I have also read HERE

I have issues with the recovery of the costs. In addition, from all accounts, Mexico's economy is recovering as well, so how much longer his bet on the leverage will last is also in question.

As for that foreign aid he want to leverage against this $166B conservative estimate of his plan?

According to ForeignAssistance.gov, Mexico received $265 million in foreign aid in 2013... But other websites argue that U.S. foreign aid totals are higher when military aid is counted. [Source]

Barely a drop in the bucket.

Get these and other numbers HERE

And remember that foreign aid is used for things other than negotiating immigration. In addition, it's not like the GOP hasn't been threatening...er...negotiating...the cutting off of foreign aid over this issue for years and years.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

It's nothing compared to this administrations spending habits. Obamacare costs 250 Billion in just admin fees to start up not to mention the 1.3 Trillion (conservative estimate) over the next nine years. That's 145 Billion per year in spending through 2025.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

If you don't want to hear the answer then don't ask the question.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Who said I support him?

Where did I say you did?

I'm just laughing at the sudden about face. All of a sudden ... spending is once again "the devil" because a candidate you don't like is all for it in terms of an agenda you don't like.

Let's be plain and honest, it's not the spending - it's the idea of being anti-illegal that you guys don't like. Tackle that instead of trying to cry about spending. You have no leg to stand on there.

I just see it as an additional waste of money that won't have the measurable effect that Trump thinks it will have. We don't NEED more security. We need to work to fix the reasons why they are coming here in the first place.

Trump’s plan does call for “mandatory return of all criminal aliens,” but that could mean both legal and illegal immigrants.

How does the source come to the conclusion that "criminal" could be both legal and illegal?

Is it something to do with deporting legal immigrants who have some sort of conviction?
That's the only thing I can think of.



Re: Trump's spending;
None of this seems to factor the loss of taking these immigrants out of the consumer economy.
11m people spending an average of 5000k a year is a further loss of around 55billion.

Weighing up the pros and cons it would probably be cheaper to hunt down illegals separately and offer them immigration through better channels.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

If you don't want to hear the answer then don't ask the question.

You did not answer or address a single item on the topic of the costs vs the benefits.

originally posted by: avgguy
Let's not forget that Obama spent over 787 Billion on the stimulus in 2009 and has blown over 800 Billion on Afghanistan.

Lets also not forget about the fiscal conservative GW Bush and how he started the bailouts and assisted with the path to Afghanistan.

Bottom line: (Not targeted at you avgguy)
If you can't see that both the DNC and the GOP candidates give you bigger gov't , less rights, more taxes/fees/debt/, and corporate friendly laws: Then you might be a political cheerleader that believes what the car salesman is selling.

Building the great wall of Mexico is only going to put 166 billion dollars in the pockets of politicians family members who so just happen to sell and provide the services to build and maintain that wall.

Does this "conservative" estimate take into account the long term savings of not having them around?

When I put new windows in my house they cost loads up front but they will cut my utility bills for years to come.