this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
-27 points (18.6% liked)

Conservative

353 readers
45 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Services like education, medical expenses, law enforcement, legal costs and welfare were prominent factors FAIR looked at in its study.

Costs for law enforcement and legal expenses would not need to be included if immigration was not illegal, so I don't see why they should be factored in.

FAIR also included the costs of US-born children of illegal immigrants — something many reports don’t factor in.

Including American citizens in the cost of illegal immigrants is dishonest.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hmm whatdya s'pose it would cost to finish that wall and put a rifleman on a tower every couple hunnerd yards or so? Might be healthcare and social services works out to be a better deal in the long run.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The border between the USA and Mexico is 3,439,000 yards long. Even if we assume that it's passable along that entire length, that still works out to only about 17,000 riflemen. They can't be on duty 24/7 but even 60,000 soldiers is not that many compared to the size of the US military. (For comparison, the NYPD has 30,000 cops and a yearly budget of 5.8 billion. Homeland Security's yearly budget is over 60 billion.) You wouldn't need a wall between the guard posts because if the public wouldn't mind seeing people shot while trying to cross the border illegally, it wouldn't mind seeing people stuck in (much cheaper) barbed wire either.

Of course guard towers every 200 yards wouldn't be how the border would be secured with 21st century technology. (Unrestrained violence isn't necessary.) My point is that the USA chooses to let people cross illegally; stopping them is realistic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I guess you're right. I thought the wall idea was kinda dumb too, but that was the idea that got pushed. Stopping anybody from crossing the border is feasible, but I suppose it's a matter of priorities. Yes people are crossing the border illegally, meanwhile the department of defense is practically pissing money into the ocean, all manner of iniquities and wickedness is going on in America. Why focus so much on this particular issue?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

How the defense industry drains much more every year.