Donald Trump’s immigration tab: $166 billion

Boy oh boy, liberal progressives just can't make up their minds.

So, now that someone's actually talking seriously about deporting immigrants, suddenly there's just too darn many of em and it'll just be too darn expensive.

Usually liberal progressives try to act like illegal immigration isn't that big of a deal, until you start acting serious about it, then......"there's too many, it's too expensive!!"

How about this? Whatever the cost, it's worth it in the long run. This is about establishing a precedent and enforcing our laws. This is about deterrence and the future.

The wall? Why not just aggressively deport illegals, who needs a wall?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

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.

Again ... Anything the government does is going to cost money. It doesn't matter what we are talking about whether it's defense, immigration, entitlements, etc.

So the actual issue you have isn't the money part. It's the part about what the money would be spent on. Why do you think so many are pointing out all the things Obama spent money on? We weren't happy with them and we didn't like where that money went, but the idea that the government was spending money on it was the last part of the problem.

Trying to make the money the up-front part of the issue is like putting the cart before the horse. Why aren't you spending time arguing about the horse?

Hardliners say Obama is soft on immigration, but advocates call him the "deporter in chief." Which is it?

Well? Which is it? The OP articles quote current numbers. There has been progress. How big is this issue still really?

Perhaps it would just be cheaper in the long run to just take Mexico?

edit - Then we could build a much smaller wall - problem solved

The irony is the amount of times Trump has compared himself to a President Reagan...

And yet when it comes to walls, they're completely polar opposites.


Always good for a laugh, Trump.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It's annoying that he's the only one who is really talking about this issue, and it makes you look like a supporter to argue it.

Just like the South's insistence on slavery forever tarred and feathered state's rights.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Here is all of the money and then some.

ustr.gov...

We are trading with Mexico to the tune of 250 Billion every year when we buy up their exports. If you look at the categories of those items imported they are identical to the same categories we export to them. We are the powerhouse so that means we are essentially subsidizing their economy to the tune of a quarter of a trillion dollars every year.

We stop buying their crap, use the same stuff we make here that was going down south, and then use the money we were going to in purchasing their exports to build the wall and cripple Mexico. Now they are stuck with $250 billion dollars worth of stuff and nowhere to easily sell it.

Take special not of this part right here:

U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico (stock) was $101.0 billion in 2012 (latest data available), a 11.3% increase from 2011.

That is over two-thirds of whatever the estimated $166 Billion number that you spouted.

Do you see how yet how much leverage we have over them? If we stopped dealing with Mexico we can send our crap all over the world, it might not be quite as profitable, but we could handle it. If we stopped helping Mexico it would cripple them. Their economy is recovering because we willingly trade with them, if that stops, so too does their progress.

ETA: The only single difference in the top 5 import/export categories was that we received plastics from Mexico and sent them optics and medical equipment. We can get plastic from other people, hell we can recover whats out in the pacific garbage patch, but where else will mexico obtain critical and key medical instruments.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Because you talk about "conservative spending" but Obama has added more to our national debt than every SINGLE president before him combined. The guy flys his dogs on separate planes to vacation, so democrats aren't exactly a shining beacon of fiscal responsibility.

Sorry but you are wrong Obama's policies have not added more to our debt than every other President combined. The President that thought it was a good idea to start two unfunded wars is responsible for that debt. Obama is the smallest spender since Eisenhower.
Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

I'm gonna say it again, not to spam, but because I want an answer from the oh so wise defenders of this mass deportation plan.

Being generous with the estimates...
Losing 11million immigrants, aside from the $160billion in costs to deport...

Would also hit the economy for at least $55billion per year...

Within a decade you'd lose half a trillion economically...


Tell me the pros again!
Aside from an excessively sybaritic POTUS.

originally posted by: hammanderr

Usually liberal progressives try to act like illegal immigration isn't that big of a deal, until you start acting serious about it, then......"there's too many, it's too expensive!!"

The American Action Forum is "liberal progressive"??

And what they're talking about in the OP is just the cost of rounding up and deporting all the undocumented workers. That doesn't even touch on the economic damage that would be caused by throwing all these people out of the country.

Does Trump think there are a bunch of legal citizens waiting to take over the jobs on the line in (for just one example) the poultry processing plants? Talk about delusional. Agribusiness would be paralyzed in this country without undocumented workers and that would hardly be the only industry affected.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

It's annoying that he's the only one who is really talking about this issue, and it makes you look like a supporter to argue it.

Just like the South's insistence on slavery forever tarred and feathered state's rights.

Tarred and feathered seems an inappropriate assessment considering the topic you assigned it to.

But sensibilities aside, the reason Trump is the only one demanding a tyrannically communistic wall be built, is because even the most unscrupulous republicans know it's a bulls# idea with a false sense of achievement.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

How much is it costing to house those illegals? To feed them? To pay for their medical expenses? Then to pay for an increase in our medical expenses? How much are we losing by enlarging our classrooms and expecting teachers to work for the same rate? How much of that money that they work for here, gets sent back to Mexico? How much are we paying in tax refunds for these illegals? How many job opportunities are lost for Americans needing those same jobs?

All of that alone makes this worth the effort, PLUS the closing of the border will protect our security better from the likes of ISIS or any other terrorist organization who has been noting our wide open border and lax enforcement of tracking these folks.

Not to mention what I outlined on why Mexico would willingly pay for this wall to begin with. We have the leverage and help them to multiples of what the wall would cost.

Like the window reference above. It may cost you up front, but long term you realize the savings. Why would mexico give up at minimum of several hundred billion dollars in trade on a single year basis, when they could build the wall and keep all of those benefits?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

What would we recoup in entitlement costs? Have you factored that in? And how much of that economic hit takes in to account the money being bled out to countries of origin. Why else do you think that Western Union and other wire services have outlets in every single Walmart known to man? It's so they can send money home. That money does not stay in the US economy. That's why Mexico and other government encourage their people to come here. We fuel about a quarter of their economy indirectly bled out of our own.

So how much of a hit are we already taking?

a reply to: DelMarvel

WOW, so there are no legally documented workers who are here that are just as willing to do that same job?

And yes, Americans would do that job if they were compensated fairly and received the same take home. When you make $10 an hour and get to keep that much, it makes the legal worker worth $14 an hour after all of the taxes are paid. I bet you could easily find people to do those jobs if they could still take home as much as the illegal on an overall basis.

a reply to: ketsuko

Bingo. We are bleeding money to the south in waves and everyone thinks its ok because we are all world citizens. Unfortunately we built our country to be a good one and to have these opportunities and that should only extend to native citizens and those who go through the proper procedure to enjoy our way of life.

We arent begging people to come here, they are freely trying to make it here, so we need to realize our leverage and use it and make people who want to be here prove that they are here to help this country and not their own personal agenda, we have too much of that as it is.

I see both of you are asking me to work it out when I'd already asked you to divulge the pros.

That's not how debate works.


Give me some statistics of what you'll save, not specious questions that seemingly imply with, no data basis I might add, that it will undoubtably be a benefit.
That's a logical fallacy.

I can do that too...
What about the loss of revenue to the PIC...
What about the cheap labour that if gone would destroy certain economic aspects of society having to spend more on the same work...

You see why that's annoying?
I haven't given you any details, I just answered a question over confidently as if that proves my point.
That's not how this works.

Show me the maths.
Thanks.

a reply to: ketsuko

And dont forget the cost to the taxpayer for imprisoning all of those illegals too. We are building prisons faster than schools. Who do you think are filling those beds? Historically it has always been the minorities, im not sure today, but I bet the statistic is similar and there are a large proportion of Hispanics in jail that are illegal.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I'm gonna say it again, not to spam, but because I want an answer from the oh so wise defenders of this mass deportation plan.

Being generous with the estimates...
Losing 11million immigrants, aside from the $160billion in costs to deport...

Would also hit the economy for at least $55billion per year...

Within a decade you'd lose half a trillion economically...


Tell me the pros again!
Aside from an excessively sybaritic POTUS.

There are currently minimal illegals since we gave them all amnesty. BUT after a wall has been built to stop the free flow you wont have nearly as many coming over at a time to track down and waste money deporting. Thats the point of the wall in the first place. Logic 101. We have 11 million to deport because we didnt have a wall to keep them from freely coming back over.

55 Billion per year hit to the economy is assuming those workers wont be replaced by americans, and it also deosnt account for this:

toprightnews.com...

Mexico received $21.59 billion in remittances from emigrants in 2013, the Bank of Mexico said

So cut your impact number in half just to start with by how much they are sending home according the Bank of Mexico.

How much of an impact does keeping that same 20 Billion in America help because it went to build things here and better the people in this country.

Logical fallacies, LOL. How about just common sense.

a reply to: ~Lucidity
When Donald said he would have Mexico pay for it, he didn't mean waiting around for a check to arrive from Mexico.

This is what he means;

According to our research engine:
The U.S. Government gave a total of $209,432,920 to Mexico in 2012:

The aid was broken down in the following manner:
Economic
Child Survival and Health: $-12,200
Department of Defense Security Assistance: $39,854
Development Assistance: $17,948,047
Economic Support Fund/Security Support Assistance: $40,810,450
Global Health and Child Survival: $3,894,197
Narcotics Control: $27,565,779
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related: $7,074,531
Other Active Grant Programs: $15,381,152
Other State Assistance: $2,700,596
Other USAID Assistance: $2,764
Other USDA Assistance: $372,914
Peace Corps: $2,000,836

Military
Military Assistance, Total: $91,654,000

So, instead of waiting for a check from Mexico or asking Congress for the money, Trump will just take what it requires to build a wall and round up all illegals from the above amount.

Show me a 20 foot wall, and I'll show you a 20 foot ladder.

I'd like to hear the Donald talk about E-verify. If undocumented workers can't get work they won't come here.
Of course his corporate cronies don't want that. They enjoy the cheap labor driving down wages for everyone.