Plan B Forum

• Müller: „Jemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten“
  
  Pressemitteilung vom 27.01.2017
  Das Presse- und Informationsamt des Landes Berlin teilt mit:
  
  Der Regierende Bürgermeister von Berlin, Michael Müller, erklärt:
  
  „Berlin, die Stadt der Teilung Europas, die Stadt der Freiheit Europas, kann nicht kommentarlos zusehen, wenn ein Land plant, eine neue Mauer zu errichten. Wir Berlinerinnen und Berliner wissen am besten, wieviel Leid eine durch Stacheldraht und Mauer zementierte Teilung eines ganzen Kontinents verursacht hat. Millionen Menschen sind durch diese Teilung die Lebenschancen genommen worden. Am Ende haben wir – das Volk – diese Teilung überwunden, und es gehört zu den Sternstunden des 20. Jahrhunderts, als am Brandenburger Tor, dem wichtigsten Symbol der Teilung, die Menschen die Mauer eroberten und sie dann Stück für Stück abgetragen haben. Das Brandenburger Tor steht für den Geist der Freiheit!“
  
  Der Regierende Bürgermeister weiter: „Heute, am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts, dürfen wir es nicht einfach hinnehmen, wenn alle unsere historischen Erfahrungen von denjenigen über den Haufen geworfen werden, denen wir unsere Freiheit zum großen Teil verdanken, den Amerikanern. Ich appelliere an den Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten, diesen Irrweg von Abschottung und Ausgrenzung nicht zu gehen. Überall dort, wo heute noch solche Grenzen existieren, in Korea, auf Zypern, schaffen sie Unfreiheit und Leid. Ich rufe dem amerikanischen Präsidenten zu: Denken Sie an ihren Vorgänger Ronald Reagan. Erinnern Sie sich an seine Worte: ‚Tear down this wall.‘ Und deshalb sage ich: Dear Mr. President, don´t build this wall!“

• Müller: "Someone has the intention to build a wall"
  
  Press release from 27.01.2017
  The Press and Information Office of the State of Berlin shares with:
  
  The Governing Mayor of Berlin, Michael Müller, explains:
  
  "Berlin, the city of the division of Europe, the city of freedom of Europe, can not look without comment when a country plans to build a new wall. We Berliners know best how much suffering a division of an entire continent, cemented by barbed wire and wall, has caused. Millions of people have been seized by this division of life. In the end, we, the people, have overcome this division, and it is one of the 20th century's star-studded hours when, at the Brandenburger Tor, the most important symbol of the division, people conquered the Wall and then removed them piece by piece. The Brandenburg Gate stands for the spirit of freedom! "
  
  The governing mayor continues: "Today, at the beginning of the 21st century, we can not simply accept it if all our historical experiences are thrown over by those to whom we largely owe our freedom, the Americans. I appeal to the President of the United States not to go this way of foreclosure and exclusion. Wherever such borders still exist today in Korea, in Cyprus, they create unfreedom and suffering.I call to the American President: Think of your predecessor Ronald Reagan. Remember his words: 'Tear down this wall.' And so I say: Dear Mr. President, don't build this wall! "

President Trump may stumble on an unexpected obstacle as he tries to build a wall along the Mexican border: Antonin Scalia.

This may seem surprising, considering that Mr. Trump has called him a “great” justice. But in one of his last opinions, Justice Scalia supplied a powerful weapon to resist Mr. Trump’s plans for a border wall.

Justice Scalia’s June 2015 opinion in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency may not seem helpful at first sight. It blocked an E.P.A. rule that would have limited mercury emissions from power plants. The Clean Air Act instructs the E.P.A. to issue “appropriate and necessary” regulations, and Justice Scalia said that language required the E.P.A. to consider the costs of its proposed rules, which it did not properly do. “No regulation is ‘appropriate’ if it does significantly more harm than good,” Justice Scalia wrote. And even though the final vote in the case was 5-4, all nine members of the court agreed that the E.P.A. could not ignore the costs of its actions when deciding whether or how stringently to regulate.

Why is Justice Scalia’s opinion an obstacle to President Trump’s wall-building plans? Mr. Trump is reported to be planning to rely on a law called the Secure Fence Act of 2006 as a source of statutory authority for the wall — apparently to avoid asking Congress to pass a new statute, which could be filibustered by Senate Democrats.

But the 2006 law authorizes the secretary of homeland security only to take actions to secure the border that are “necessary and appropriate.” These are the same words (in the opposite order) the Supreme Court interpreted in Michigan v. E.P.A. As Justice Scalia said, it would not be “appropriate” to “impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars” in benefits.

President Trump’s proposed wall would certainly cost billions of dollars: He says $8 billion, while more realistic estimates put the price tag at $15 billion to $25 billion (and $500 million per year for upkeep).

What about the benefits of the wall? First, it won’t keep many aliens out. No matter how high the wall is, it won’t stop smugglers from tunneling underground, as many have already done to get past existing border fences. Moreover, the wall won’t stop a majority of unlawful immigrants, who now enter the United States on visas that they overstay.

Indeed, research indicates that border barriers are more likely to keep unlawful immigrants inside the country from exiting than to prevent people from entering. Even John Kelly, President Trump’s pick to head the Department of Homeland Security, said during testimony that a wall “in and of itself will not do the job.”

Second, even if the wall does lower the number of unlawful immigrants in the United States, the economic gains from reducing illegal immigration are not greater than the cost of the wall. In fact, the economic effects would quite likely be zero or negative. Illegal immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes, purchase goods and services, and enhance American productivity in sectors such as agriculture. A 2012 study published by the Cato Institute concluded that the gross domestic product would decline by roughly 1.5 percent — or $2.6 trillion over a decade — if we pursue a program of mass deportation and block undocumented immigrants from returning. Similarly, a study commissioned by The Wall Street Journal last year concluded that Arizona’s economy was on average 2 percent smaller per year because of the large-scale departure of undocumented immigrants from 2008 to 2015.

dales wrote:This ascetically-pleasing wall, designed in Mexico.

Dear Quote Investigator: I sometimes have difficulty spelling words correctly. But I take comfort in the magnificent statement attributed to Mark Twain:

I don’t give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.