1.  1% of spending is like $38 billion dollars.  

The entirety of illegal immigration costs the US at most $55 billion a year.  And that's because there are 11 million immigrants in the US, which the wall does nothing about. 

The average illegal immigrant costs the US ~$5,000 a year.  It's like spending $10 billion for a solution, when the problem only costs $1 billion.  

The wall needs to be maintained, and we wouldn't see a massive difference in immigration unless we beef up spending on border patrol as well.  At some point, it doesn't become fiscally responsible.  That is what government waste looks like.  

I don't particularly care if the wall gets built.  I'd prefer if it didn't.  

The frustrating thing for me, is that no one is actually looking at if it works.  There's no analysis of whether the border wall would work on the Southern border, there's no analysis of what kind of wall would work.  No one is talking about alternative possibilities, let alone how effective any other possibilities would be.  

You can point to the Israel wall, but there's a difference in terrain.  Things like forests makes it easier to get through a wall, because it's easier to hide and climb over.  Flat lands make it harder, because it's easy to be spotted.  It's also hard to say whether or not there are political reasons why that wall would be more effective. 

2.  As for the vetting issue, yes that'd be great.  But, it's not all that easy.  

Take drug dealers across the southern border.  Most drugs come in through legal checkpoints.  Which the wall doesn't do anything about.  If the wall can't stop most of the worst, then it drastically limits what is gained by vetting.  

Illegal immigrants are less likely to do crime, because they are more likely to get caught.  

The reason I ask is that you seem very wedded to this wall idea. And even although most of the information you've given has been corrected by others to show that the problem is not as bad as you initially thought, your view seems not to have budged even an inch...

If you were open-minded about the topic then new information should at least make you reconsider your position, but there has been zero evidence of that.

It's like you're supporting a sports team, rather than weighing up the pros and cons of this particular issue on it's own merits...

At one point, in an attempt to reduce the perceived cost of the wall (I'm guessing in order to make it seem better value for money) you stated 'Personally I think the 50 billion for a wall is bs. 5.6 billion should be enough if you budget correctly.'

I mean, what is this assertion based on? Wishful thinking? What do you, me, or the next guy on this forum know about the funding and efficiencies of large scale government infrastructure projects? Unless you are an expert in the field (which I'm guessing you're not as your point would have been more insightful than 'I call bs'...)

If it's not the case that you are personally being impacted by illegal immigration and the information you claim to have based your initial opinions on has been proven to be false, then I get the sense that what your opinions are being driven by is largely partisan in nature...

This is in addition to your continued hand-wringing over the dem's unwillingness to make a deal with Trump - even though others have REPEATEDLY pointed out that: a) Trump isn't actually offering anything of value & b) the dem's have clearly stated their stance on Trump's repeated tactic of using government shutdowns as leverage to get what he wants.

You either need to prove that these 2 points are false or unreasonable, or stop repeating the same flawed sentiment over & over....

Quite fittingly, it feels like speaking to a wall... 

This to me, is the biggest problem at the moment with politics (not just in the US I might add) - too much subscribing to party lines & not enough considered thought as individuals...

1. I know that the issue is not as bad as it used to be but I dont think that issues should be ignored because they are not as bad anymore.

2. I support other ways of securing the border but I think a wall is the no most efficient way to make sure almost nobody gets in.

We already have barriers in place and people have been tunneling through them for years.  What would change with more walls.

3.Oh 50b is bs. It's possible to build a wall cheaper if they do it correctly. Yeah i guess you can call it wishful thinking but it's still possible.

There have been many experts who actually do this type of work that stated 50 Billion was not even close to the real cost it would take.  Its one thing to have an opinion on something its another to actually know.  You can always believe in projects like this the number given to the public will be the absolute low ball number.  One thing the Trump administration has not done is an actual cost analysis which will give you a real figure or at least something closure to actual.  Even then you can expect many change orders once construction begins that will run up the cost.

4. I don't need to be impacted by something to support it. Also the info I said about hundreds of thousands of people entering is based on the last report published by homeland security.

5. I've also said that Democrats are not even offering any counterdeals. They don't like what Trump is offering so they should offer something back. Idc if they don't like the way Trump is shutting down the government. They know that he wants a wall and is willing to cut a deal while they are not offering anything in return. The GOP even proposed a bill last week that would pay Government workers but it failed in the house because Democrats voted against it. They don't really care about getting people payed, they just want a victory in this situation.

The reason why the Dems is not giving any counter deals is that their stance is no deal until the government is open.  In other words, they will not deal while the President holds the country hostage.  This is the 3 rd time Trump has done the shutdown game, at some point people get tired of him waiting until budget time to make demands, shutdown the government as leverage to get what he wants.

6. It has nothing to do with a political part for me. I'm not a member of either party. 

We do have defense.  

There's 20,000 patrol officers, and hundreds of miles of fence.  

Not to mention hundreds of miles of natural defenses like deserts, and rivers.  

1. My point is that it's not fiscally responsible.

2. It's per capita. That means the average US citizen commits more crime than the average immigrant.

I thought Republicans priority is lowering public debt and cut spending. Why are they so eager to add over five billion dollars to the already record breaking deficit by building an expensive wall?

View on YouTube

Yet the Canadian border goes basically unguarded.  

Why can't we fix things so that the Mexico border equally has few people coming over without investing in expensive border security?

1. Not all crimes are worth taking care of.  See marijuana.  

2.  And I think we have to make reasonable measures.  If a solution hurts more people than the problem it seeks to solve, it's a bad solution.