> if 40% are visa overstays then 60% aren’t. 60% of 20,000,000 is 12,000,000. I’ll settle for a reduction of 12 million illegals.
Ken: You’ll “settle” for something that you think costs you nothing. But if you were a normal person who had something to lose, like we do on the border, you’d want a cost benefit analysis. Since you don’t cross the border, or know anyone who lives in South Texas, you don’t care. Tell you what, you give up what you own and have labored for a couple of decades. Then tell me how easy it is to “settle” for a reduction with the sort of cost-benefit analysis you just did. But I’ll tell you what’s wrong with your answer.
Illegal border crossings are down 30%+ this year alone, and we’ve seen similar declines in the last two years with no fence even before the housing bubble popped (I don’t object to short fences in certain areas as there are now). We can get more without taking people’s land and water rights and making life miserable for US citizens who live near the SW border like me. 60% is the theoretical maximum where the assumption is that a) the fence is 100% effective in stopping physical intrusions, b) the crossing rate were not declining (they are), and c) no other measures were taken (they are being taken). So point “a” merely begs the question, but the bottom line is that the payoff won’t even be close to 60%. Would you have Texans give up their land for 10-20% reduction?
Admit it, you didn’t even know that the fence required claiming private land against by imminent domain because it wasn’t on TV or talk radio. And you know nothing of dramatic decreases for the same reasons. And you didn’t know that 40% of illegals cross legally. But you won’t admit any of this will you? Nope. You’ll take someone else’s land anyway though, because the solution seems so simple.
