[tptacek]

Look at what you're writing. The US has had the policy you advocate for dozens of years; that's why they're called "illegal" immigrants.

Meanwhile: since 2000, the number of by-land unauthorized immigrants to the US has plummeted, with the share of unauthorized immigrants who simply overstay visas approaching 50%.

"The wall" isn't bad policy because it's inhumane. I care deeply about not deporting unauthorized immigrants but not even a little about the social impact of a big ugly wall in our big ugly southwest states.

"The wall" is bad policy because it's an extremely expensive make-work project that won't actually meaningfully reduce unauthorized immigration. It doesn't matter how high the wall is. Even the unauthorized immigrants who get here on land aren't running across open field land borders. The policy is a con, meant to appeal to a popular misconception of who unauthorized immigrants in this country are and how they got here.

You are like 2-3 Google searches away from verifying for yourself how stupid this particular use of funds is regardless of your opinions about immigration.

[postcarnival]

First off, the southwest states are anything but "big ugly". The wall isn't an endgame solution it's part of a larger shift in overall policy to actually enforce our existing immigration laws which will also include booting people who have overstayed their visa. We should also look to revamp our immigration process to allow legal immigrants in faster (10 years is way too long) and incentivize those who will ADD to America to come here. I agree the wall is in some ways symbolic but it is functional as well. Google secured fence act as HRC was also on board with it.

[tptacek]

We already have policies that have demonstrably curbed unauthorized immigration over our southern border. Unauthorized land crossings have plummeted since 2000. You are again just a few Google searches away from the numbers. The wall is in almost every sense symbolic, and will not address the concern it is meant to address.

Again: it's annoying that we'd consider investing billions of dollars in a make-work project that really serves as nothing but a giant monument to racism --- couldn't we just paint the statue of liberty white, or something? --- but the real issue with the wall isn't moral, it's that it's a gigantic waste of money. It won't even prevent unauthorized immigration over our southern border, because that's not how unauthorized immigration works.

[postcarnival]

If the wall is so "symbolic", what do you care if it's (further) built?

[tptacek]

I don't, really, except for the gigantic waste of money it represents. Why do you want that money spent?

[postcarnival]

It's just a deterrent, part of a broader restrengthening of our nations' sovereignty imo. It sends a message. The amount of money is quite small when compared to real sources of government debt such as entitlements or the military.

[pcwalton]

> I agree the wall is in some ways symbolic but it is functional as well.

You know what would also be symbolic? A solid gold trash can, burning money 24/7.

[postcarnival]

Yes, sort of like the belligerent democratic policies of the past 8 years that have us 20T in debt and counting...

[tptacek]

The thinking here being that the best response to a spiraling national debt is to spend tens of billions of dollars on worthless public works projects?

[postcarnival]

Uh, did you support Obama and 800B he spent on infrastructure? Were you gonna support Clinton and her proposed $300B borrowed from the public for infrastructure (copying Obama's failed move)? If you could relax off the vitriol you might find that Trump's ideas could lead to an uptick in our economy. You might even give him a chance. Afterall, every newspaper and "economist" in the world predicted the market would plummet if he were elected and instead it rose to it's highest levels.