The increase of illegal immigration has not increased the rate of violent crime, and in fact more American citizens commit murder than illegal immigrants do. My citation from Des Moines Register was literally a critique of how King and Trump skew the numbers themselves to twist the narrative in their favori. You claim that DMR were the ones trying to skew the numbers, which would still be more than enough to support a wall, except their point was that nobody actually keeps track of the number of people murdered by immigrants, and they said that only half of the immigrants (Legal and illegal, since they were referring to immigrants as a whole) were being charged with being here illegally. Claiming that you could cut the number in half and still have enough people killed per year is completely ignoring that their entire point is that the worse crimes illegal immigrants commit is literally just being here illegally.
"You previously rejected this data because that was only about smugglers who got caught. That's fair enough…" Did you miss this part? I took special care to not conflate the number of drugs caught with the number of drugs making it across, and yet you're claiming that I was still doing that. My question to you was to provide actual evidence of the people who are not caught, and how that warrants the border wall. Given that you failed to comprehend the data that I discussed in the previous paragraph, I'm going to say that you failed to accomplish that.
The analysis that most drugs come across the legal points of entry was explicitly provided from southern Border Patrol. The people explicitly designed to oversee the area that the wall would be designed over are outright telling us that most drugs coming through legal points of entry. I find it utterly baffling that you will claim that nothing backs it up when the people whose job is to know this stuff are outright telling you otherwise. You're not using logic or facts, you're outright dismissing actual the evidence and data because it completely contradicts your positions and you don't want to believe it.
So you have no actual data of how many people illegal immigrants bring drugs across the border and contribute to the death toll of Americans, but it just… makes sense to you that it's totally happening to such a degree that it warrants a wall? You still haven't provided any actual evidence or sources to back up your point. Your arguments are reasonable, but they aren't backed up by any credible evidence, and when all the data completely disagrees with you, I'm going to believe that data. Until you can actually provide specific numbers from credible sources to back up your argument, why should I believe the wall is necessary? I agree with your point that it's more logical to go through points with weaker security, but you need to show proper statistics that show that this is happening. I understand that it would be difficult because I'm asking for data about people who don't get caught, but for as much as you claim that you have facts on your side, I can't help but notice how you haven't actually shown any.
The Mueller investigations has resulted in 199 criminal charges and 37 indictments. Again, this seems to be an issue where you claim that nothing backs something up, except the results prove that Mueller has found far more than nothing. If you want people to believe that you have facts on your side, maybe you need to actually look at data instead of just blindly repeating that nothing is backing me up.
Trump has attacked media not because it's bad press (Except Fox News, which threw a fit about fairness as if children being taught basic human decency is some nefarious liberal agenda), but because they challenge him to actually back up his arguments, and much like yourself, Trump refuses actual facts and instead just repeats the same exaggerated talking points, and had to use a doctored video to justify throwing out Jim Acosta for no reason other than he was from CNN. Trump all but threatened Venezuela two days ago, he's trying to sell nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia without any kind of deal, and he was comparing sizes with Kim Jong-Un about nuclear buttons. Trump's strategy is basically to claim that he's preventing a war with North Korea that Obama would have caused, even though Trump threatened to annihilate North Korea himself. The deficit has also hit $22T for the first time ever. We're always going to have a debt, but I would rather see Trump take more strides to minimize it than allow it reach a new record.
While his policies are like those of a 90's Democrat. The key point there being 90's, and I would be more than happy for more sitting Democrats to leave. Frankly, both parties have their fair members who only seem to still be in power because they've been there for so long, and I would like them to be held to term limits. But I feel like talking about why Democrats hate Trump is just going to be a pointless back and forth if we don't stick to how that relates to the shutdown over the border wall.
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.national...al-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.
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.
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.
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.investor...-at-the-border/ This one addresses quite a few of your arguments.
https://www.washingt...38-000-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.conserva...gal-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.
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.national...al-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.
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.
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
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.