you will get a bigger multiplier effect by building a wall than you will by increasing the foreign aid budget. if you're concerned strictly about the economy, a wall is a better idea.

see, you can't win a humanistic debate by appeals to fiscal conservatism, which is usually wrong in the best of situations.

i really want to hear people that are opposing the wall to stop talking about how it's a waste of money - because anybody halfways literate in economics knows that this is the kind of thing where the economic benefits increase exponentially with the amount that is spent. it would be anything but a waste of money. even if it doesn't keep a single person out, it would still be worth it in spin-off jobs. this "the wall is a waste of money" spiel is just making people sound like complete economic illiterates.

what would be better than building a wall would be digging a ditch, and filling it back in, and then building a wall over it, and then tearing it down, and then building it again. think about the revenue. brilliant. and, the taller, the better.

so, i don't want to hear this - it's deflating. i'm not a conservative, and i'm not going to support a policy rooted in the premise of fiscal conservatism, and the rejection of keynesian infrastructure spending. it's a backwards argument.

what i'd like to hear somebody say is that they're going to build the wall because it's good for the economy and address the actual issues surrounding unwanted migration - because i both support keynesian infrastructure spending, and i want to get to the root causes of the issue.

don't tell me to support a conservative backlash, and then temper it with some lip service to tepid humanitarianism. i'm not going to bite into that. give me a humanistic solution to a humanistic debate, and then approach the economics of the wall from the right side of the spectrum - and concede it's a solid job creation strategy.