One of the recent talking points used against those people who actually want to control our borders is the cost of building a wall. Obviously, Mexico will not directly pay for a wall–they enjoy having people come here illegally and send money back to Mexico. There is no incentive for them to put a stop to that behavior. So how do we pay for the wall?<\/p>\n
Paul Sperry<\/a> posted an article at The New York Post<\/a> on Saturday that offers one possible solution.<\/p>\n The article reports:<\/p>\n Mexico won\u2019t have to pay for the wall, after all. US<\/a> taxpayers won\u2019t have to pick up the tab, either. The controversial barrier, rather, will cover its own cost just by closing the border to illegal immigrants who tend to go on the federal dole.<\/strong><\/p>\n That\u2019s the finding of recent immigration studies showing the $18 billion wall President Trump plans to build along the southern border will pay for itself by curbing the importation of not only crime and drugs, but poverty.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe wall could pay for itself even if it only modestly reduced illegal crossings and drug smuggling,\u201d Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies<\/a>, told The Post.<\/strong><\/p>\n Federal data shows that a wall would work. A two-story corrugated metal fence in El Paso, Texas<\/a>, first erected under the Bush administration has already curtailed illegal border crossings there by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which it was built.<\/strong><\/p>\n The problem is not only illegal immigrants–it’s drug smuggling. How much money and how many lives do the illegal drugs coming into America cost?<\/p>\n The article concludes:<\/p>\n While Democrats complain the $18 billion price tag for the Trump wall<\/a> is too high, the \u201cDreamers\u201d amnesty bill they want Trump and Republicans to pass in exchange for funding the wall (or ideally in spite of the wall) would cost US taxpayers even more than the construction of the border partition over 10 years.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe cost of the DREAM Act<\/a> has been estimated as very large \u2014 a $26 billion net cost in the first 10 years,\u201d Camarota noted.<\/strong><\/p>\n Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office<\/a> recently estimated that 3 million DREAM Act recipients would receive an estimated $12 billion-plus in ObamaCare<\/a> subsidies, more than $5.5 billion in Medicaid benefits, $5.5 billion in earned-income and child-tax credits and more than $2 billion in food stamps.<\/strong><\/p>\n A bipartisan bill incorporating the deal was defeated in the Senate last month by a vote of 54-45. Trump rejected the proposal in favor of a tougher border bill introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley<\/a> (R-Iowa), which limits the number of DACA beneficiaries to 1.8 million, curbs family visas, or so-called chain migration, and phases out the diversity visa lottery, while earmarking $25 billion in funding for the wall and other border security.<\/strong><\/p>\n The problem is not the money–the problem is the spending priorities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the recent talking points used against those people who actually want to control our borders is the cost of building a wall. Obviously, Mexico will not directly pay for a wall–they enjoy having people come here illegally and … Continue reading