Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Good example of the vapid analysis you hear on the news even after 2 years, and even after the shutdown of the government. I consider it a complete joke to listen to people who do such superficial analysis claims that this goal is superficial.
1. My first question is if this is really as big an issue as they claim. A simple google search shows that 80% of gun violence is gang related. So if you want to reduce gun violence it makes sense to focus on gang violence.
Another simple search would surely make it clear that gun violence is the single biggest issue when it comes to law and order and safety.
So the answer to the first question is yes, a responsible person would focus on gang violence if they were serious about making the US safer.
2. My second question is if illegal immigrants are really part of the problem. It turns out that 13% of the violence with gangs is from illegal immigrants. This is not insignificant, it comes to around $50 billion in estimated damages. Also, these gangs are closely affiliated with gangs in other countries and this relationship is critical to them. For example, if they sell drugs this connection is to their supplier. If you can cut this connection you do far more damage to the gang than the 13% would indicate. An artery may not represent a large mass of the human body, but cut it and the body dies.
So yes, illegal immigrants are part of the problem and cutting that link could cripple the gangs ability to operate.
3. My third question is if the proposed remedy will actually solve the problem. The wall is not going to stop the import of drugs, even though the occasional mule will swallow the drugs in bags, even so I doubt these ones walk through the desert for 20 or 30 miles. Instead the wall will have an impact on illegal immigrants, particularly people who cannot climb the wall (older people, women and children). None of those people would be cartel hit men. However, many of them will be poor immigrants whose children may be prime targets to enter a gang later. So it is possible over a ten year span to see a small decrease in gang members, but even a 3% drop would be a significant impact to the US. But what I see as the potential real benefit is that fewer of the border guards can spend their time rounding up these immigrants, allowing us to focus more resources on the paths that the cartel uses -- tunnels, cars, trucks, and airplanes. Again, even if it allows for a 5% increase in seized contraband that would also be a big plus to our law enforcement.
So the term "solve" is relative, just like a weight loss program. Will cutting out fruit drinks and soft drinks "solve" the obesity epidemic? No, but it will help and that is how you make inroads. A little improvement here, and a little improvement there.
4. Since it won't "solve" the problem my fourth question is if it is cost effective. Will the $5 billion result in more than a $5 billion return to the US. I estimate that it will. Generally for a construction program like this you can compare it to a house with a 25 year mortgage at 5%. It is very difficult for me to believe anyone who looks at the numbers in an unbiased way taking all factors into account would not conclude that the benefit would be at least that if not far more. I see something closer to a 20% return on investment being a very conservative estimate, meaning the wall would pay for itself in 5 years.
|