Oh, it’s definitely going to swing people his way. No doubt about it.
Trump’s wall would pay for itself in less than 5 years, what government project has such a quick return on investment.
In 2011, California alone had an underground economy was pegged at $7 Billion per year.
“Employers who pay their workers cash under the table to avoid payroll taxes, workers’ compensation insurance and other government mandates are costing California about $7 billion annually in lost tax revenue and undercutting companies that play by the rules, state officials say.”
Illegal immigration is a lot cheaper to manage on the front end than the back end.
How does a wall stop employers from paying their workers cash?
E-Verify would be a much better way about it if you are looking at it from an underground economy angle.
The wall is just one aspect of this, E-Verify is another. Enforce the laws, fine the employers, and remove the perks, and this issue is a done deal.
As for the visa overstayers, scan their passports when they arrive. If they aren’t renewed, extended, or scanned for departure by their expiration date, issue a nationwide arrest warrant and freeze their bank accounts and credit cards.
You don’t think Mexico will be paying for the Wall?
I think Trump can make Mexico pay for it in a couple different ways, whether he goes through with it or not is another story.
You mentioned Trump’s wall, not E-Verify. Trump hasn’t mentioned E-Verify or other ways to handle immigration beyond a wall and deportation. I don’t see how the wall would change the underground economy as you mention.
You cannot employ someone who can’t get into the country, the same way a burglar cannot rob you if he can’t gain access into your home.
That’s actually false. I have personally listened to an interview he did with Hannity where he specifically mentioned E-verify. Sure it was vague. Something like, “E-Verify is good, I like it.” No more specific than his wall plan, but it was mentioned nonetheless.
And where is our peace loving, civil rights champion of a President? Crickets.
Let me think here, clinton(more of the same as our current asswipe of a Pres) or Trump.
Cant wait to see what election day at the polls will be like here in Kalifornia.
I’m voting for Bernie, I don’t give a fuck about him or his policies, it’s just my way of giving the pantsuit a kick in her pantsuit.
2 Likes
Love it Max I would do the same thing.
But she’s actually abandon the normal pantsuit look that she has been known for. She has now adopted more of a Chairman Mao look and others have noticed too. Even left wing MSNBC mentioned it.
http://politistick.com/liberal-msnbc-panel-hilariously-blasts-hillarys-mao-like-wardrobe/#
Great comedic photo here (larger than one above).
But this is not a burglar, in this scenario “burglars” are already in your home and also have other ways of getting in.
A wall would stop some of the future immigrants. It would not prevent all. So the economy would exist. It wouldn’t do anything about the people here. Maybe fir your cost comparison you could look at growth of the “cash economy” that you mention and show how the growth would be limited, but the economy would still exist.
Ok, I’ll concede he has potentially mentioned it but it is not the same as his idiotic wall. for his wall he has talked about it numerous times, and is a central piece of his campaign. He has given an estimate for what it would cost, and has insisted that he will do it. That is hardly the same as saying “E-Verify is good, I like it” one time.
I would much prefer him to go with E-Verify, but that would require him to abandon his right wing rhetoric and have some common sense. The wall is a stupid idea that does not solve the current issues the fence is having and does not touch other issues of illegal immigration.
[quote=“Drew1411, post:3003, topic:212571”]
A wall would stop some of the future immigrants. It would not prevent all. [/quote]
Why bother to lock your door at night? It won’t stop someone who really wants to get into your house. But, it will stop most who are looking for an easy way in…Right?
Are you following the conversation? Max said that the underground cash economy would be eliminated, therefore justifying the cost for the wall. That is not true.
In your analogy, there is nobody already in the house. That is not true, there are already illegals here, therefore the economy would not be eliminated, it’s growth would be slowed. The argument max should be making is that the growth of the under the table cash economy would be slowed by ~60% IF the wall does not run into the same issues the fence does.
I like eliminating the easy way in, as you put it “locking the door”. We have a fence. Finish the fence. But pretending that will solve the immigration problem is a ridiculously simple way of looking at it. Fits trump perfectly, but that’s not how it works in reality.
E-Verify only works if the penalties are enforced and are significant enough to prevent employers from continuing the practice.
If enforcement is similar to the Obama policy of ignoring illegal’s in the country, then it is a gun loaded with blanks.
Send the ones who are in jail back to Mexico that will take care of about 35% of them. As for the rest case by case basis. If they are drawing funds from the government send them back to Mexico. If they are contributing to the economy allow them to stay.
Build the wall can keep more illegals out of the country. This does not have to be complicated. Some things are actually fairly simple. No the wall does not solve the problem completely but it goes a long way in helping to solve it. with some problems there is no one thing that magically solves the problem. But a series of things can solve the problem. The wall is simply one thing that will help solve the problem.