Jump to content

U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year


Nathanael D. Striker

Recommended Posts

The argument that more citizens commit violent crimes than illegal immigrants is a pointless statement. First and foremost, this is the united states of america. More citizens committing crime here is to be expected. The difference is, One is supposed to be here, the other is not. We are discussing people who have no business being here in the first place, Not people who were born and raised here. We are talking about the illegally imported problems, not the home grown ones. It does not matter how many Americans commit violent crimes (in the context of this discussion) unlike Americans, Illegal immigrants should never have been here in the first place. No matter what the crime ratio is, Illegal immigrants should never have been here in the first place. Americans belong in america, illegal immigrants do not. 100% of illegal immigrants broke the law. Violent or not. They are not supposed to be here. There is nothing more to discuss in comparison. If you want the numbers, then at the lowest estimate, just over 5k people are killed yearly by illegal immigrants ( https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/crime-illegal-immigration/ yes, people do keep track of the numbers.) and far more go down for other violent/otherwise illegal offenses, like drug dealing, DUI, rape, assault, ect.

Which Americans are supposed to be here? Native Americans, or the people descended from Europeans who came here and stole land from those Native Americans, kidnapped and enslaved African people, then decided to dictate who should and should not be allowed to come here? You can keep repeating that they aren't supposed to be here all you want, but if their biggest crime is quite literally just coming here, I don't see how the Americans that you're batting for are any less guilty.

 

U.S. immigration is a ridiculously skewed system that makes it difficult for immigrants to even meet legal burdens, and "illegal immigrants" is just a dog whistle for Mexicans. I think it's more important to make our immigration system less restrictive, rather than making it even more restrictive like white nationalist ally Stephen Miller wants it to be. I frankly see no issue in making legal immigration easier.

 

But, okay, so illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be here. Why shouldn't they be?

 

The cost of anchor babies from people who plop over and pop one out (K-12 school funding for illegal immigrants is a thing, especially in sanctuary cities), the cost of healthcare and prison cells, the cost of Californias' sanctuary programs in total, The damage done from illegal wages on the working class, the number of people killed per year by illegal immigrants, or border related crime (MS-13 happens to be one of those related problems), the drug problem in and of itself, human trafficking, ect. These are all separate topics that can be used to point out the need of a border wall. Logic and math could even be used if you look at the cost of the wall (building AND maintenance) vs the yearly budget to compare how it measures up to other programs and helps/harms job creation. By the way, one of the articles you linked had lawmakers using the exact same argument that you just agreed was pretty much worthless, which is the entire reason i posted what i did. The lawmakers you claim are against trump, use the exact same arguments that you, not moments later, agreed were garbage. You missed where my comment was pointed.

 

So the cost of all those programs and facilities could be better spent elsewhere? That's a fair point. So put it towards expanding the ports of entry. It doesn't seem like the lawmakers were making any argument that I said was worthless. They say that the wall is taking too much attention away from ports of entry, and I think Vicente Gonzalez is right to suggest filling out positions at Border Patrol. Can you specify which exact argument they made that I said was garbage?

 

The links you use say most drugs caught by border patrol, are caught at legal points. Where exactly do you expect to find the data on the drugs we don't catch, but clearly see the effects of on the streets? Like the times border patrol finds traces of drug gang violence across unprotected parts of the border? Like the vehicles recently caught trying to make it across the less guarded terrain with hefty loads of drugs? Or the people on foot that we catch miles away from checkpoints with packs full of drugs on their backs? Or the tunnels that we discover from time to time that attempt to circumvent border patrols? Yeah we catch more drugs at the most heavily guarded points, aka checkpoints but Thinking like a criminal and/or pondering the evidence will tell you the majority of what we don't catch is coming across at the lesser guarded points of entry, like the large stretches of unfenced, unsurveyed, and unguarded land between checkpoints.

 

I'm reminded of something you said the other day, that just because someone says the evidence, and that they conducted an investigation, does not really obligate you to suddenly believe them. I don't expect to find any data on the drugs we don't catch, and that's what I'm trying to get at. It's not enough to prove that the greatest problem is at the border.

 

Who do you think I'm going to believe: One person who simply claims that the majority of what we don't catch is coming across the border, or people whose job is specifically to watch the border telling us that we should be more concerned with the legal ports of entry, because the data that they have led them to that conclusion?

 

Step back for a bit, and look at the rest of the factors, it's not just drugs, it's gang violence, it's human trafficking, it's the drain on the system from an influx of people using entitlement programs, ect. drugs is one of the aspects, and border patrol interview after border patrol interview confirms as much. Border security is, in my opinion, a combination of physical barrier, camera surveillance, and personnel deployment. At many areas along the border, we have none of those 3, and all 3 are required for any of them to work at their best. You can ask for data all day, and sure, i'll give you some since i have the time right now:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-crisis-at-the-border/ This one addresses quite a few of your arguments.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-illegal-immigration-leads-to-2-200-deaths-118-000-rapes-138-000-assaults This one lays out a large number of problems that will be faced by illegal immigrants just on the way here, from other illegal immigrants. al arge portion of said problems being rape, murder, abduction, assault, and robery. (the largest slice problem being getting caught, but hilariously enough, they don't list that as a large problem when they point out the troubling ones.) personally, i don't like how it attempts to quietly conflate arrest by border patrol with rape and robbery, but besides that shot in the dark, it's rather on point. 

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/the-media-never-cares-when-americans-are-killed-by-illegal-immigrants/ more conservative than i'd like, but google seems to enjoy placing the most anti trump news on the first page, and has the rest pages behind it. it basically points out the media bias in reporting deaths from illegal immigration and lays out an argument that many of the illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes are among the same pool of people that sanctuary cities refuse to hand over for other types of less violent crimes, such as DUI, drug related offenses, and nonlethal assaults.

I give credit for the Investor's Business Daily article for having some sources to back up its argument. Not sure what much else I can say in response to it, but ultimately that article does have its fair share of merits.

 

The Washington Examiner's source is more about events that immigrants will be subjected to by criminal Mexicans, not other illegal immigrants.

 

Like you said, the Conservative Review is... well, pretty conservative. In trying to critique the media's bias, it reveals its own biases. My issue is that it's cherrypicking crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and while their status as illegal immigrants is indeed something they all have in common, it acts as though illegal immigration in and of itself is the exact reason for all those murders, and that's just such a desperate association I simply cannot accept. Plus, the complaints against sanctuary cities ring hollow when, if I understand correctly, the administration has actually lost more cases opposing sanctuary cities than it has won. Trump tends to use withholding funds as a popular threat, so that source seems less like a legitimate case against illegal immigrants, and Conservative Review is suggesting that he should double down on that threat. They may have had a point, but it's muddled in being vindictive rather than logical.

 

The argument remains the same though. I'm using standard logic and basic facts to point out and make my arguments, all the while reading through your rebuttals and citations and explaining why they are either flawed, or do not apply to the discussion at hand. Even giving some ground for points i agree with. I don't have the time that i used to, so the posts where i make an entire page worth of text on my own, with fully searched citations, is diminishing as well. On the next topic though, 200K+ arrests and detentions of illegal immigrants ( https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/crime-illegal-immigration/ paragraph 3 ) per year is a hell of a lot of taxpayer money to spend on people who should not even be here, no matter how you slice it. This is an unnecessary drain on taxes, for people who should not exist in america in the first place. that is why the border wall is a strong argument. A proper border with surveillance tech, can cover for lacks in personnel, delaying long enough for border patrol to notice and more often than not catch the perpetrators far sooner than we do now. My own argument is to remove incentives in the first place, as that's a large part of the magnet dragging illegal immigrants over, but drugs and human traffickers don't care about laws, and as such, a barrier is the best possible way to block, deter, or at least delay such problems till the border patrol can get there. It's a much needed stop gap for the overall problem, and both the creation and maintenance would create proper jobs along the border for at least decades to come.

 

Since I'm going over each of these quotes one by one, pardon any inconsistencies in my tone or arguments here. If nothing else, just assume that I'm trying to respond to this particular post from different perspectives than I had in my previous posts.

 

I agree that it is an unnecessary drain on taxes, so how about this? Let's try to find some common ground on what we could agree on, and where exactly our differences are stemming from, and to work towards a compromise for the sake of this discussion based on that? The bottom line is that illegal immigration is the main issue that this shutdown was fought over. The difference is what we think would be the most appropriate solution for illegal immigration.

 

I do not think that a physical barrier would be the best possible way to deter or block them. While I think you're onto something with how it could delay problems until the border patrol gets there, the issue then is that you actually need a border patrol in the first place. It's more important to fill the job vacancies in border patrol before dealing with the wall. While there's no reason the administration can't focus on both, if it comes down to choosing one over the other, I would rather increase the border patrol first. However, that becomes much more difficult when there has been an increase in vacancies, which I discussed before.

 

Like i said, nothing. So far, not a single one of the things anybody has perused (as far as tying something to trump) has been shown to be anything even remotely connected to trump on a criminal level ( http://archive.is/HJJoz ). The most he has that we know of at the moment is a couple past events that everybody knew of, or some mixups that got blown out of proportion in the effort to nail trump. Don't forget, the investigations had one main goal, to find a concrete connection between trump and russia related to the 2016 election. They have not done so, unless you have some info I don't relating to the cases. At the moment, they have nothing. Will they have something new after the muller probe? Maybe, but we have seen nothing yet, and i expect nothing different from the probe. Trump has been a businessman for a long time. making company connections all across the globe. We have yet to see anything relating to anything but business, and i don't expect that to change.

 

We have a thread about the investigation. I would rather not make any proper response here, because that would be inviting further discussion on this point, and both of us have been writing long posts. You say that you don't have as much time as you used to, so I will respect that and simply say that you can either reiterate this in that thread if you'd like to continue this line of discussion there, or if you'd rather not, I'll leave well enough alone.

 

Do you know what's going on in Venezuela right now? How things are for the people living there? Why wouldn't he threaten them? The country is being destroyed from the inside out, the citizens are legit refugee status at this point, and the entire area is arguably being dragged down from the problems Venezuela is suffering. Somebody stepping in has been long overdue. Hopefully not us, we have our hands full here and can't afford the battle unless we plan to rob them of natural resources after the fact. There is an actual humanitarian crisis. The alleged nuclear secrets deal is just breaking, and the allegation is that the department head is selling secrets, not trump himself. He is indeed responsible if it happens by proxy, but the correct allegation till more details come in, is that a department under him is attempting to do so. Till we get more info, I won't comment fully, but i will say that saudi arabia already knows how to make nukes, the problem is attaining the materials to do so. We'll see the details on that in a few days most likely, so you can bring it back up then if you'd like, as I too disagree with it. HIs "comparing sizes" has lead to the first peace talks between north and south korea in decades, and is still going well by all accounts. The threat was essentially "cut out the nuclear threat bullshit or america will make you." and as ridiculed as it has been, it worked like a charm, it only counts as an argument in favor of him as a result. As for the deficit, it has increased and reached record highs under every president for the past 30-40 years at least

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans-to-reduce-national-debt-4114401

It's not an argument unless you want to aim it at literally every president for the past 30+ years. I agree that trump should be working harder at decreasing it, but considering many of his plans have been blocked far harder than he expected (I blame him for underestimating congress) that particular promise is liable to not kick in till year 8, or never at all, if they all keep fighting like this.

 

I agree with you there. Thing is, like i've said before, many of the democrats opposed to the wall were all in for a border wall of some sort just a decade or so prior, and were up in arms claiming bushs' wall was too weak of a wall. many republicans and southern democrats even campaigned on it for a time, and have flopped had on it now. the cost of it in total would be no higher than 30-40 billion if it goes above professional estimate. The total budget for the year is 4.4 trillion dollars. At 30-40 billion (an overestimate), It is still less than 5% of the yearly budget, that amount could be recouped just by removing the incentive programs for illegal immigrants coming over, and much of the money would be going to companies in the united states, ensuring that more jobs would be available. the damage to the farming sector isn't something to be overlooked, as they do rely heavily on illegal immigrants, but fact is, cutting money from entitlement programs for illegal immigrants would free up money to aid farms in hiring actual citizens, reform deals could even be made to grant those jobs to former criminals rehabilitating for the first time, ensuring the people have a proper way to reintegrate into society, while ensuring farms have a source of work and ex-convicts have a source of honest income. combine that with research into better handling of crops and you could potentially revolutionize farming, take another step towards prison reform, and knock out a portion of illegal revenue leaving america. not saying it'd be that easy, but the possibilities are there. this is just me spit-balling ideas for a bit, and i've got this much, imagine what congress as a whole could get done or introduced if they actually wanted to tackle the problem properly.

I am aware of what's going on in Venezuela, but I'll admit I don't know enough about the situation as I would like. Trump supposedly does want a war with Venezuela because of oil, but I think "we can't afford the battle unless we plan to rob them" is an absolutely despicable reason. That's directly encouraging war profiteering.

 

Fair point on it being the department head selling secrets rather than Trump himself. Since we both disagree with the issue, I think we can leave well enough alone on that front for now.

 

...Yeah, I see absolutely no point on discussing the ups and downs of the deficits, so I'm just going to leave that be. And the peace talks between Korea are further off-topic, since the main reason you brought it up was about why Democrats stand against Trump.

 

The shift in Democrats supporting a wall and now opposing it likely to do with both a change in the individuals currently making up the Democratic party. While I'm sure they are specific individuals who could be singled out (Particularly Schumer), it's more that Trump getting elected wasn't the only result from 2016. After their utterly disastrous attempt to install Clinton as their figurehead (For what it's worth, I will always be happy to condemn them for the absolute shitshow that was their 2016 primaries), the main issue was that they faced internal pressure to move further left. That support for a border fence, and wanting to be more ambitious than Bush was something that the party had simply grown tired of from their leaders.

 

Some of them may have genuinely changed in their positions, while others I'm sure just want to save face. But the change in the Democrats' position on the wall likely has more to do with the party's internal strife than it has to do with Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not playing that game. Americans, the people who are born and raised in the United States of America by legal immigrants. I couldn't care less about who stole what from who before i was a semen drop in a nutsack. Indians lost that battle, america now is not theirs, and unless you really want me to justify the eradication or complete takeover of mexico, we aren't playing sins of the great great grandfather game, or who asking who really deserves what land.

 

It does not negate the need for proper a border barrier. We aren't talking about the legal immigration system, We're discussing drug trafficking cartels, and human traffickers, and illegal immigration. If you want to take that route i can discuss and agree with you that the system needs improvement, and can even come up with ways to improve it. I've made the arguments countless times before for making, and how to make, the immigration system better, but we're discussing a government shutdown (and more recently a national emergency declaration) centered around border wall funding here. the first link I will likely address sometime later tomorrow in full detail as there's a hell of a lot i disagree and agree with in it, while the last two are irrelevant to the discussion on my end, and not my arguments at all.

 

Because nations have borders, and rules for crossing said borders. There is only so much room in america, and controlling the borders that allow the flow of people coming in and out as best as possible makes perfect sense. Making sure you know who is coming into your home, and ensuring that unsavory elements and unknown foreign factors are kept to a minimum. Would you leave your door open all day and let everybody who wanted to come in? Of course not, because there is no real limit of people who would likely come in to take advantage of your home country, draining your resources without contributing anything in return so long as there was even the slightest incentive to do so. Are there those who wouldn't? Of course, but then they could be regular citizens and come in normally via visa at least, if they'd like to try entering. America is a country that contains many social programs that use taxpayer money, not placing a cap on the number of people who can enter and take advantage of these programs is tantamount to cutting your wallet open and ensuring that money flows out consistently. you can have wide open borders, or well funded social programs. you cannot have both.

 

 

They do not take away from the points of entry. How does that even become as an argument? If you build a wall around your property, do you then become incapable of looking at your driveway? A wall (in combination with proper surveillance tech) allows for better attention to be paid towards points of entry. The open space are literally an expanded entry. People can come across any wide open space far easier than they could a solid barrier.

 

 

Extrapolation. We know drug cartels are active along the border, we see busts across the border and at points of entry alike. We know from evidence, like tunnels, testimony, drug busts, drug crime on the streets, human abductions, and surveillance footage that cartels move drugs and people across the border. We have ample evidence beyond just he said she said. r/watchpeopledie has cartels on camera killing people in drug wars near the border almost every other week (not linking for obvious reasons). it's logic combined with evidence, testimony, and a recorded history of this happening and being acknowledged, but never fully addressed by past presidents.

 

[spoiler=Who do you think I'm going to believe: One person who simply claims that the majority of what we don't catch is coming across the border, or people whose job is specifically to watch the border telling us that we should be more concerned with the legal ports of entry, because the data that they have led them to that conclusion?]

 

 

 

 

It's data on what happens to the people trying to come across. The people they encounter are also other people attempting to break across the border. it could be argued not all, but it has to be acknowledged that alongside mexico handing out pamphlets on how to break across the border, and american incentives encouraging people to come over, it's a fact that people shouldn't be coming across illegally (be they hardened drug/human traffickers or people breaking the law via illegal immigration). that's the point.

 

It is not cherry picking to point out the crimes of illegal immigrants, when the discussion is about illegal immigration and border security. Illegal immigration is the cause of those crimes. They should not have been in the country in the first place. Unlike americans, who are a home grown problem, crimes of illegal immigrants, are crimes that should never have been possible in the first place, because they should never have been in the country in the first place (as in they should have been vetted prior to entry, which illegal immigrants are not). As for sanctuary cities, they are in fact ignoring the federal laws of the land. Allowing unvetted people to come across and hide out in the country within sanctuary cities. We already know the 9th circuit won't let trump remove federal funding from countries ignoring federal laws, but we also know The SC wouldn't step in the last time, so it stopped at the 9th circuit. That was well before trump took the SC. Trying for a 2nd run through the SC would be rather amusing right about now, all things considered. 

 

The best solution imo is the combination of the 3 pronged solution of Wall-Tech-Personnel, combined with removing any and all incentives directed towards illegal immigrants. It handles drug trade, human traffickers, and a decent chunk of illegal immigrants. The amount of funding is peanuts compared to the national budget, and if it had been passed from the start, at least in 1/4 increments, there would be no relevant strain on the total national budget, and border construction related jobs (physical and technological) would be effectively raising the number of created jobs, while reducing the required ground to track constantly. 

 

A physical barrier is a deterrent. Walls have worked in many a country when combined with tech, legislation, and border patrol. We do have a border patrol. We simply have lass people than we need right now, and fewer than we want overall. A wall mitigates the strain of that though, as it creates a clear line to pass that border patrol can monitor instead of looking across a vast stretch of plains. Cameras add into this, allowing border patrol to monitor the wall situation at a distance, and have enough time to get there if anything seems off. A wall is a larger boon to a smaller immigration force than a large one (though it benefits both greatly as it reduces overstretching of assets.). If you have a smaller force, the ability to survey and deter from a distance is invaluable. Which a wall and a camera system would do far better than an open space. Personnel are important, but a wall does not restrict them so much as it frees them up to address problems across a larger range without fear of missing large swathes. also good news, hiring speed, from the last heard report, seems to be picking up speed: https://www.govexec.com/management/2018/10/dhs-says-its-finally-hiring-more-border-agents-its-losing/151987/

and on top of that, they seem to have worked through their internal issues and are no longer pouring so much money into outside hiring corps (though they're still paying for the additional advertising.) https://www.govexec.com/management/2018/12/dhs-scales-back-troubled-contract-designed-bring-more-border-agents/153426/?oref=relatedstories

 

 

It's despicable, but it's a fact. If we step in for nothing, we lose money we really shouldn't be wasting outside america in the first place. Then again, robbing them might be a harsh way of putting it. More like setting up trade deals in our favor after helping them restructure. Which is the same thing, just dressed up prettier. In either case, if there's nothing in it for america, wasting time fighting for them is just throwing money to people who can never pay us back. We do that too often as it is.

 

Thing is, Even by those standards, moving further left is a bad look to the center left, and independent voters. the far left is on par with the worst of the far right, and neither should hold sway on their party the way we're seeing these days. You can sheet on him all day for the "mexico will pay for it" spiel. I'd agree that he clean funked up there (at least so far), but we really do need a border barrier to reduce the overall strain on border patrol's surveillance regimen. It is seriously one of the best of the potential "all around" solutions that i can think of. Removing illegal immigration incentives does nothing to the drug and trafficking trade. Camera surveillance does nothing to prevent or even deter the crossing of anybody who moves faster than a small child. Drone striking across the border would leave a bad taste in the mouths of pretty much anybody who isn't an absolute monster, Pure human patrol is already straining at the bit. accepting everybody who comes in is completely out of the question. Helping mexico become a better country permanently (aka breaking up cartels ourselves) would require absolutely dominating mexico and enforcing their laws and southern border, which most people would object to pulling off outright. Making them enforce their own southern border alone still leaves Mexican illegal immigrants and cartels, and assumes we can trust the same government that tells it's own citizens to go to america. There's far more i thought through, but yeah, border wall+human personnel+camera system in collaboration with incentive removal is the best solution possible, It worked well enough for pretty much every country that invested in setting it up today. Even if it's less effective here than elsewhere, if it's even 70% of the success seen elsewhere, the results will really pay for themselves imo.

 

 

My personal stance is mexico deserves to be great again, and absorbing citizens from mexico and other south american countries is not the way to go about it. Helping mexico get back on it's feet is not our responsibility, but We would benefit greatly from having them step up as a proper first world country. but before we help them, we have to clean our own house, and keeping the door open to mexican everything on the southern border, is not going to do uur country, or theirs, any favors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no a deflection darling, it's that Trump is following precedent set his predecessor

 

Which is why I posted the tweet from him earlier. Trump's national emergency is just as bad, if not worse than what he was criticizing Obama for. It makes Trump an absolute hypocrite.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/09/donald-trump/obama-hedged-didnt-say-he-lacked-legal-right-daca/

https://www.inc.com/guadalupe-gonzalez/daca-9th-circuit-court-appeals-decision-trump-administration-scotus.html

 

It was the DHS that passed DACA, not Obama. He also passed it while he was still pleading to Congress to work with him, because he wanted the DREAM Act, but instead of declaring a national emergency, he announced a stopgap measure as a middle ground, ultimately meaning he was still waiting on Congress to pass the DREAM Act, rather than circumventing Congress.

 

So no, it's not a precedent. Unless you can explain how DACA violated the separation of powers the same way Trump is in fact violating the separation of powers here, it's a false equivalence that is indeed deflecting onto Obama to take heat off from Trump. Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/more-50-ex-national-security-officials-tell-trump-national-emergency-n975701
 
58 former national security officials have declared that Trump's "national emergency" is not justified. They cite that "illegal border crossings are near forty-year lows, there is no documented terror threat, human and drug trafficking will not be affected by a border wall and there is no violent crime threat posed by immigrants."

 

But sure, since there's no data on illegal immigrants who don't get caught, let's just say that the danger is big enough to warrant a wall. Because fearmongering over the people you haven't caught is clearly a rational argument steeped in hard evidence and not xenophobia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more like saying that we know we have a drug problem, and we know there is currently not really much to differentiate the current situation from past years. In other words, the assumed lull in immigration has no real grounds to stay the same, as we've seen with the caravans. a lull is the exception to the known rule, and does not signify a permanent drop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more like saying that we know we have a drug problem, and we know there is currently not really much to differentiate the current situation from past years. In other words, the assumed lull in immigration has no real grounds to stay the same, as we've seen with the caravans. a lull is the exception to the known rule, and does not signify a permanent drop.

I'm going to drop these articles here (charts are included) to help aid discussion. Feel free to draw conclusions from them.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/622246815/unauthorized-immigration-in-three-graphs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the second article (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/622246815/unauthorized-immigration-in-three-graphs),

The first statement is kinda off. It uses stats on apprehended illigals to attempt debunking trumps claim, but his claim is on the crossings, not the captures. so the statement isn't really a proper rebuttal.

 

The second statement kinda makes trumps point more solid. It admits that 2017 was an outlier, where the end number is far lower than the starting point of the year, and that 2018 is seeing a rise in comparison. 2018, by the charts admission is pointing to a rise in numbers, and end of year figures are backing that up, considering the caravan problem that arose in the last few months of the year. 2019 is still a bit too early to tally numbers, but we'll see there. It also grants that the numbers year by year vary, and that central americans, alongside asylum seekers have risen in number over the past years. it also attempts to tie in the economy, but that's a point not worth debating yet, due to my own time constraints.

 

the final point is one that relies on the people who were willing to answer, and assumes they were answering 100% truthfully. Not to attack character of them though, but put simply, we know there are gang members,and drug traffickers who have actually used family as an excuse in an attempt to stay, or avoid getting caught. I'm 100% sure there are those who come over to be with family, but if they come over illegally, then i have to ask whether or not they realize just how badly that looks on them and how much it can cost their family. Also, family may be a reason, it is not an excuse.

 

It's an interesting article. and while i don't really think it adds much on the topic of solutions, it does give some extensive reasons.

 

 

 

The second article though, technically the first (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/) has more points to it though.

 

The first point, while pointing out a drop in illegal amount, also points out the massive increase in amount till this point from prior history.

 

The second, points out that while the number of mexicans has decreased, the overall number from elsewhere in central america has been fairly constant, been increasing in places. (also claiming that it's actually lowered from elsewhere, like canada and europe) pretty odd.

 

The third point is a pretty standard one. The illegal immigrant workforce dropped alongside the rest of ours during the recession.  

 

For the fourth one, over half of of the six most illegal populated states have, or are attempting to hold, sanctuary city laws. the other ones are pretty much lined right along the border. Two of the three states that have seen the largest increase, are right next to the sanctuary state of new york, the last is right next to the texas, so that kinda speaks for itself.

 

As for the fifth, time spent means very little really. We know the general location is shifting, but the immigration from the south is still continuing at rather high numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can get away with blocking Trump because he is unconditionally in the wrong here. It isn't a matter of "that's pretty much the way things have been", it's that Trump is being held accountable for abusing his power. After Republicans have blindly followed Trump out of pure sycophancy, I'm glad that Republicans are breaking from Trump on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too surprising. That's pretty much the way things have been since they got into office, so I wouldn't expect much different on anything they could get away with blocking.

You see, when ever the Democrats use unilateral executive power, even if it's just superficial to push their power, that's "Acceptable overreach"

 

But when Republican looks at the Opiates, Rapes, and illegals coming over, that's an overreach

 

That's the Roxas philosophy 

 

The assclowns don't have the votes to override his veto, this is the problem with the GOP politicians being a party of Romney, but the GOP voters being a populist-nationalist party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've repeatedly accused me of operating in bad faith, but your latest responses have largely been focused on making ad hominem attacks against me, or complaining about Democrats just for the sake of complaining about them. I would like to ask you to step back and make proper contributions to the thread. As vla1ne would say, you're focusing more on attacking a person, rather than refuting their argument. If you're just here to pick a fight with me, take it somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, roaxs is right winter. You have to focus more on the argument than the person in the discussion. personal attacks don't do anything to an argument, and the person themselves could be a saint or a living sack of excrement and it would not change the validity of a solid argument one bit.That being said, trumps declaration of a national emergency is only wrong from the opposing angle. What i mean by that is, Illegal immigration is a problem that affects the entirety of the country negatively, it is something that should not be encouraged, and steps should be taken to prevent it, but many people today don't seem to view it as enough of a problem to declare it a national emergency, and some states are even willing to step against federal law to ensure that they don't have to locate or deport illegal immigrants. Those who view this as a good thing, or at least those who have even a remotely favorable view of this way of thinking, will likely not see illegal immigration as a problem at all.

 

On the flip side to this, there are those who see illegal immigration as a major problem, and consider it a matter of high priority to secure the borders in order to prevent the problem from remaining as pervasive as it is today. These people, when faced with the recent flaunting of federal law by individual states, and when observing the progression of "sanctuary cities" will more than likely view it as a national emergency of the highest order. We all know who's on what side of this discussion, and we all know that this is going to be a major battle because of said sides. my prediction mirrors trump. it'll make it up to the supreme court, and be upheld by virtue of being directly related to matters national security, an area trump has direct authority over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, roxs is right winter. You have to focus more on the argument than the person in the discussion. personal attacks don't do anything to an argument, and the person themselves could be a saint or a living sack of excrement and it would not change the validity of a solid argument one bit.That being said, trumps declaration of a national emergency is only wrong from the opposing angle. What i mean by that is, Illegal immigration is a problem that affects the entirety of the country negatively, it is something that should not be encouraged, and steps should be taken to prevent it, but many people today don't seem to view it as enough of a problem to declare it a national emergency, and some states are even willing to step against federal law to ensure that they don't have to locate or deport illegal immigrants. Those who view this as a good thing, or at least those who have even a remotely favorable view of this way of thinking, will likely not see illegal immigration as a problem at all.

 

On the flip side to this, there are those who see illegal immigration as a major problem, and consider it a matter of high priority to secure the borders in order to prevent the problem from remaining as pervasive as it is today. These people, when faced with the recent flaunting of federal law by individual states, and when observing the progression of "sanctuary cities" will more than likely view it as a national emergency of the highest order. We all know who's on what side of this discussion, and we all know that this is going to be a major battle because of said sides. my prediction mirrors trump. it'll make it up to the supreme court, and be upheld by virtue of being directly related to matters national security, an area trump has direct authority over.

It's not in this case. You can sub in "Generic Democrat" if that's the main offense

 

They're perfectly willing to operate under a double standard when politically convenient

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/border-crossing-increase.html

 

REGARDLESS ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the exact numbers are not known, many of those apprehended along the southern border, including the thousands who present themselves at legal ports of entry, surrender voluntarily to Border Patrol agents and eventually submit legal asylum claims.

That's from the article you just linked. Seems that, once again, my argument that immigrants tend to use legal ports of entry. The article is also explicitly about how a wall would do little to slow down migration. This is the problem I've been trying to stress: Whatever your position is on illegal immigration, most analysts agree that a wall is not the solution. This is why I agree with Democrats refusing to give Trump enough funding for his wall. If the general consensus is that a wall would be inefficient, why would I completely ignore that consensus and still blindly insist on dumping massive amounts of money?

 

You can claim that it's about double standards, but that's purposefully ignoring what data actually says about whether or not a wall would be effective. Data says that a wall would not be worth it, and then Congress decides to dedicate their money where it would be more useful. Trump has made it perfectly clear that his administration utterly despises facts, and will make them up however they see fit, so Trump ignores the facts as they have been presented to the public, and declares a national emergency because he's spent the last 3-4 years on a specific narrative, and he's not going to change course on that narrative.

 

The main reason to oppose the national emergency isn't because people don't see illegal immigration as a problem. It's because Trump asked for far too much money on something that will not serve as an adequate solution, and abused his authority to try getting that money. This isn't about what's politically convenient, it's about properly using money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A surge of migrants along the US-Mexico border has US Customs and Border Protection at the “breaking point,” the Trump administration said Tuesday.


More than 76,000 people were apprehended crossing illegally or without proper papers in February, the highest number of “encounters” in any February in the last 12 years, according to CBP. …


Of the 76,000, 7,250 were unaccompanied children and 40,385 were people who came with family members. …


Since October, there’s been a 300% increase in the number of families apprehended compared with the same period in fiscal year 2018, according to CBP.


 


No problem here right?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

A surge of migrants along the US-Mexico border has US Customs and Border Protection at the “breaking point,” the Trump administration said Tuesday.

More than 76,000 people were apprehended crossing illegally or without proper papers in February, the highest number of “encounters” in any February in the last 12 years, according to CBP. …

Of the 76,000, 7,250 were unaccompanied children and 40,385 were people who came with family members. …

Since October, there’s been a 300% increase in the number of families apprehended compared with the same period in fiscal year 2018, according to CBP.

 

No problem here right?

I have a question: what part of the border? If I am not mistaken, ports of entry are a part of the border. So if that data includes ports of entry, then I would assume it weakens your position a bit. Just a thought to keep in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question: what part of the border? If I am not mistaken, ports of entry are a part of the border. So if that data includes ports of entry, then I would assume it weakens your position a bit. Just a thought to keep in mind.

No? How do you know border passage isn't proportional. You're making a lot of judgments based on people you didn't catch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question: what part of the border? If I am not mistaken, ports of entry are a part of the border. So if that data includes ports of entry, then I would assume it weakens your position a bit. Just a thought to keep in mind.

I know it's not aimed towards me, but just thinking on it, I'd assume that if people are attempting to cross illegally, they'd generally use somewhere other than an official port of entry. I know the kids they catch are likely found closer to a proper point of entry though. We have more than enough stories of border patrol agents finding children near the border with notes written on them by the parents. As the goal of the parents is to either send them somewhere safer, or to get them some manner of help in a number of cases. Even so though if the number apprehended away from a proper point of entry is anywhere above 50%, then that alone would still make the border wall (or some proper barrier of sorts) a valid argument. I don't know if that exact data is actually available though, so that's a fairly good question I'll look into that one when i get some real time.

 

That being said, keep in mind that this list only applies to the amount apprehended. We know well that a separate number is actually getting across, because we know sanctuary cities, and various other cities hold large amounts of illegal immigrants who use social programs designed for them in said areas. ICE also apprehends large numbers within the country as well, so the total number is likely larger than what winter is presenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a legitimate question, so don't get cute with me.

It's not being cute. It's very simple statistics

 

Border apprehensions at port of entries has sky rocketed. Illegal attempts mind you. A proportional increase in non POE entries is statistically likely. And also it's hard to comment on the stats of illegal immigration we didn't CATCH. CBP estimates we nab 1/3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No? How do you know border passage isn't proportional. You're making a lot of judgments based on people you didn't catch

 

Isn't that quite literally what you and vla1ne have both been doing? You two support the border wall entirely because you've based your judgments on the people who weren't caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...