Uhhhhhh...... do you doubt that the border is 2000 miles long?
Do you doubt that an >>>IMPENETRABLE<<< wall, as opposed to the one we have now, which mexicans cut holes through, tunnel under, or throw ladders over, would cost billions of dollars?
The FACT is that nobody here is proposing such a wall be built. That is where you are not sticking to facts.
Offer facts and logic to support that assertion ........IF you have any.
Again, you claim the NID would be "cheaper" than building a "Berlin Wall"... It would also be "cheaper" than shipping illegals into outerspace to colonize the moon. The problem with your "logic" is that nobody is suggesting the proposals that you're using as a baseline to compare your proposal as being "cheaper".
Now, how much will the NID cost? Saying it's "cheaper" than proposal X is not an answer, it is an evasion.
That's simply false - government would pay for it.
At a cost of??? You have never answered that question... How much money will the government have to spend to create, operate, maintain and secure the NID program?
You have three options: Pick one.
That is a false dilemma fallacy.
Nahhh - no more than say, drivers lincenses.
If the 330+ million citizens have to pay for the NID out of their own pocket, as they do for a drivers license, then clearly you lied when stating, "government would pay for it."
Rebuttal? Arguments? You are big on assertions and silent with supporting logic.
You need to offer an actual proposal that solves the underlying causes of illegal immigration, complete with cost estimates. Leaving out all the important details and using fallacies of logic to claim your proposal is "cheaper" than others is not an argument made with sound logic but assertions and rhetoric.
Existing laws can be skirted for a number of reasons, including principally the inability of determining who is an illegal - my solution cures that completely.
I ask you again...
Who's job is it to enforce immigration law?
And what is a billion nowadays, with obozo and his leftwing claque throwing money around by the TRILLION??
That is the fallacy of equivocation, not logic.
No - way back you implied that the border should be "secured".
And the false dilemma fallacy led you to believe that meant I wanted a "Berlin Wall" built on the border.
How should they do that? Speak up and let's hear your mysterious, never-spoken solution.
Actually I did talk about it... End the welfare state, limit government to protecting individual rights and implement open immigration (again not to be confused with open borders). The problem of illegal immigration exists because there are more people who want to enter the country than are allowed to enter - that is a fact which you have not yet grasped much less come to terms with.
I never claimed they would or should disappear - they will be filled by unemployed americans when the illegals go home, which they will if they can't get a job.
If they cannot get a job through legitimate channels, they work under the table for cash, that's what they do now, that's what they'd do with the NID in place.
That is the reality you are avoiding with the fallacy of wishful thinking in believing that illegals will simply "go home" when they cannot get a legitimate job.
Now you have not shown that the NID solves either of the two major causes that lead to illegal immigration:
1. It does not solve the problem of more people wanting to enter than are allowed.
2. It does not eliminate the black market which allows illegals to earn a living without a legitimate job.
Any workable solution needs to solve #1 otherwise #2 will enable illegal aliens to enter the country and find employment. The NID proposal solves neither.
In this forum, one feels like applauding when someone grasps even the obvious. 
