Again, inconclusive data. The only thing we can't conclude, is that it's costing us billions. The link at the bottom of the page goes into detail where the $113 billion figure comes from.
Odd how you say the data is inconclusive and then go on to provide an exact figure. Meanwhile, I gave the inexact measure of "most likely modest" which as far as I know is the CBO's best estimate. I'll also note that while I used the nonpartisan CBO for my estimate, you used FAIR whose founder John Tanton has expressed his wish that America remain a majority-white population. For example he said,
- "As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?"
- "I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that."
It should come as no surprise that FAIR's estimates tend to skew in the anti-immigration direction. They admit on their site that they take the official estimates then sprinkle their own FAIRy (hehe) dust on them to get their numbers.
Another poor argument. Let's say for the sake of math, that illegal immigration costs us $100 billion. Let's say its 1:1 and that 40% we choose to let in, costs us $40 billion. Does that somehow absolve the issue of the other $60 billion from the 60% that are sneaking in?
First, this isn't an argument that stands on its own. All my points build on each other to show why The Wall is a stupid idea. For example, imagine that you say you can earn $5 for delivering a package, and I point out that it is not worth it because it would take $2 for gas, $2 for fares and $2 for parking. An invalid argument for you is to isolate the gas price and say, "Hey, even though it costs me $2 for gas I at least make $3 net". By doing that you are ignoring that it's all the costs together that make the $5 payout not worth it. For the wall, you have to combine this analysis, with all the others. Each one makes the idea of the wall less needed. Together they make the opportunity cost of the wall not worth it for the small benefit it could provide.
Second, the +40% of illegal immigration that don't cross the southern border is but one part of the equation. It shows that AT BEST the wall could be 60% effective. Of course on top of that, no wall is going to be 100% effective. So out of the 60% that could be stopped, let's say half, 30%, actually are stopped. Note: There doesn't appear to be any info on how effective fences are. They are typically attributed with being locally effective. People just cross elsewhere.
Finally, your "Well if it stops at least a few people, then it's worth it" argument doesn't hold up. As I pointed out before, we are having trouble funding the Children's Health Insurance Program. This is one of the few cases where "Think of the Children" is actually appropriate. Having kids die to potentially stop 30% of illegal immigration is not worth it, and that is just one area that badly needs funding.
Civil engineers say fixing infrastructure will take $4.6 trillion
This is not a graph of how many are coming in. This is a graph of removal and returns.
"To further our argument that the wall is not needed, here is a graph that shows we have returned less illegal immigrants under the Obama administration". It's not like we currently have defiant GOVERNORS refusing to take action on illegals or anything.
OMG, talk about your "poor arguments". Returns are an objective measure of per year illegal immigration. If it makes you feel any better, here is the EXACT SAME concept
stated in a different way,
The estimated number of Mexicans in the United States illegally rose steadily for many years, from 2.9 million in 1995 to a peak of 6.9 million in 2007. But the number began dropping in 2008 and has fallen more since, reaching 5.8 million in 2014, the latest year for which Pew analyzed data.
Or for those who just must have pretty pictures.
I know. It's amazing what a tough policy on immigration can do. Still, not proof that a wall is unnecessary. If we were having 500,000 a year enter, and now we are down to 400,000, does that mean no further work is required?
We have negative illegal immigration. That is the definition of proof that a "wall is unnecessary". Your logic: Doctor says, "I'm sorry. I know your foot is healing up, and there is no chance of gangrene, but we are going to amputate anyway. That'll be an extra $100,000."
Then we round it all up with feelings. We've seen the massive cost. We've seen the political movement to shield them. We've seen the problem. But will someone think of the children?! They will die because of this wall. Classic deflection.
You are the one deflecting and not addressing the point. I pointed out an opportunity cost of funding The Wall that is a current ongoing concern(within weeks) and costs in the same ballpark as the funds requested by Trump. That isn't deflection. That is a line drive right up the middle. So instead of you dodging my point by using your own emotional argument (nice projection you've got going on), answer the point. Why should we spend money on a problem that literally does not currently exist when we have much more pressing issues to deal with? If the idea of children drives your brain into spasms making answering that impossible, then as I mentioned above, replace them with the $4.6 trillion needed in infrastructure spending.
I await your reply of, "(mocking)But will someone think of the infrastructure?(mocking) Classic deflection." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
