Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Denver
1,330 posts, read 699,767 times
Reputation: 1270

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadicDrifter View Post
How many people crossing the border currently do you think can rappel to the bottom? Those crossing with kids, do you think they would be comfortable with their kids rappeling down?

Your argument (that anyone determined to get across will) is eerily reminiscent of Republican talking point that no gun control will be effective since criminals will break the law anyway.

No, it will have a big big big dent in number of people crossing. Yes, the most determined will find a way but many won't and won't even bother.
You overestimate how hard it is to rappel to the bottom. We had a rock climbing wall in Jr high in our school and I remember going on cub scouting events in Elementary school. All your really need is a single adult at the bottom helping with rope management and the person coming down the wall doesn't have to do a single thing.

You're right that it makes it more inconvenient for those who want to cross. However for someone who is trying to start a new life, physically crossing the border is probably one of the smaller challenges that they have during their journey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:26 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,231,255 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
What is full wall funding?

Heck, don’t know if it’s a wall or a fence let alone how high, thick or composition.

Don’t know one time cost. Don’t know ongoing costs. Don’t know replacement costs because sooner or later everything wears out.

Don’t know how much private land will need to be acquired by Eminent Domain. Don’t know the cost associated with acquiring land, including appeals and outcomes.

You should worry less about the $25 Billion wall and more about the $5 Trillion per year healthcare.


I would be open to universal healthcare but only if it does not include illegal aliens OR their anchor babies, and the only way to ensure that (given De Blasio's and Newsom's efforts to include illegals in public healthcare) is to ensure there are no illegals here. Otherwise, the bleeding hearts will eventually get them included.


And the wall is only one part of the solution for that. The bigger and more difficult parts are reigning in our courts, revising our laws that have been twisted and abused, and stronger enforcement of our laws. Our asylum laws were written under the assumption that applicants were legitimately seeking asylum from persecution, not merely seeking a better life and using asylum as an end run around the legal immigration process. We need to be able to detain any illegal being prosecuted for as long as their prosecution takes, and immediately deport anyone illegally present in lieu of prosecution.



So I would trade universal healthcare for a package that includes border barriers, enhanced border security, elimination of asylum loopholes, immediate deportation, and end to birthright citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:27 PM
 
78,438 posts, read 60,640,522 times
Reputation: 49744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
I would gladly trade "single payer" health insurance managed by the Government, AND "foreign aid" for total border security.
Even if it means a wall from coast to coast, with guard towers every quarter mile!
Illegal immigration (invasion), IMO, MUST be stopped!
How tall of a wall would stop visa overstays?

https://www.politifact.com/californi...lf-all-people/

They make up "about half" of the illegals.

I'd like to note that this is a point that is widely agreed upon by just about everyone (see link).

P.S. My link even credits tighter boarder enforcement leading to more illegals working the "visa overstay" angle. So to that point, I'm sure the wall would help curtail people from walking across the border. It will however, cause increases in other types and frankly isn't even the main source of illegal entry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Florida
7,195 posts, read 5,730,901 times
Reputation: 12342
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
You should worry less about the $25 Billion wall and more about the $5 Trillion per year healthcare.


I would be open to universal healthcare but only if it does not include illegal aliens OR their anchor babies, and the only way to ensure that (given De Blasio's and Newsom's efforts to include illegals in public healthcare) is to ensure there are no illegals here. Otherwise, the bleeding hearts will eventually get them included.


And the wall is only one part of the solution for that. The bigger and more difficult parts are reigning in our courts, revising our laws that have been twisted and abused, and stronger enforcement of our laws. Our asylum laws were written under the assumption that applicants were legitimately seeking asylum from persecution, not merely seeking a better life and using asylum as an end run around the legal immigration process. We need to be able to detain any illegal being prosecuted for as long as their prosecution takes, and immediately deport anyone illegally present in lieu of prosecution.



So I would trade universal healthcare for a package that includes border barriers, enhanced border security, elimination of asylum loopholes, immediate deportation, and end to birthright citizenship.
"Anchor babies" are United States citizens. I'm not opposed to ending birthright citizenship, but you can't strip current citizens of their citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:34 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,231,255 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Would you support trading single-payer health insurance for the wall funding?


That's like asking the captain and passengers of the Titanic, if they would agree to the Democrats' offer to patch up the huge hold in the right side of the ship, provided the Dems were allowed to cut a new, equally-sized hole in the left side instead.


$25 Billion wall. $5 Trillion / yr healthcare. It's more like asking to cut a new hole 200x the size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Florida
7,195 posts, read 5,730,901 times
Reputation: 12342
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
$25 Billion wall. $5 Trillion / yr healthcare. It's more like asking to cut a new hole 200x the size.
The estimates for what healthcare would cost are on par with what healthcare currently costs. It's nowhere near 5 trillion. It's around 1.38 trillion. Want to know how much it costs now? 1.38 trillion.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...yer-system-be/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:43 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,231,255 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
How tall of a wall would stop visa overstays?

https://www.politifact.com/californi...lf-all-people/

They make up "about half" of the illegals.

I'd like to note that this is a point that is widely agreed upon by just about everyone (see link).

P.S. My link even credits tighter boarder enforcement leading to more illegals working the "visa overstay" angle. So to that point, I'm sure the wall would help curtail people from walking across the border. It will however, cause increases in other types and frankly isn't even the main source of illegal entry.

The vast majority of people crossing illegally are dirt poor and would never qualify for a visa in the first place. We can deal with the overstays much more effectively. We could better vet who we give visas to in the first place. No tourist visas for late-term pregnant women to deal with birth tourism, for example. We could require large deposits for students and workers. We could require periodic verification of location for students and workers. We could require details of exit plans prior to visa expiration. Remove birthright citizenship and ban adjustment of status on visa category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:45 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,231,255 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy View Post
The estimates for what healthcare would cost are on par with what healthcare currently costs. It's nowhere near 5 trillion. It's around 1.38 trillion. Want to know how much it costs now? 1.38 trillion.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...yer-system-be/

No way it would cost the same. Basic common sense tells you that since the principal driver for universal healthcare is for all the people who cannot afford healthcare now will be able to get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:47 PM
 
23,177 posts, read 12,231,255 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy View Post
The estimates for what healthcare would cost are on par with what healthcare currently costs. It's nowhere near 5 trillion. It's around 1.38 trillion. Want to know how much it costs now? 1.38 trillion.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...yer-system-be/
Your own source casts much disagreement over that number so don't be throwing it out as proven fact.

Sanders pegs the price tag for his plan at $1.38 trillion per year during the first 10 years. This is based on an analysis by Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

However, "there is a great deal of disagreement and controversy" about this number, said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy and management professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Kenneth Thorpe, a professor of health policy and management at Emory University, put the cost at $2.4 trillion a year. A team from the Urban Institute put the number at $2.5 trillion a year.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected $2.8 trillion a year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Florida
7,195 posts, read 5,730,901 times
Reputation: 12342
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
No way it would cost the same. Basic common sense tells you that since the principal driver for universal healthcare is for all the people who cannot afford healthcare now will be able to get it.
There would be much less administration to pay for. Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts | Physicians for a National Health Program
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top