Packed with data. (including the Texas law enforcement authorities' data)
I stopped after this..
"Illegal border crossings have been declining for nearly two decades. In 2017, border-crossing apprehensions were at their lowest point since 1971."
Why, just yesterday, Mojo, of all people, posted an article that claimed apprehensions tripled last year. It's really a function of available jobs. The more there are, the more illegal crossings there will be.
But... It appears You in particular, and the left in general accept the argument that if a problem is decreasing, no action is required. Using that logic.. Since violent crime, and gun related crimes have dropped dramatically over the last few decades, I guess we can stop worrying about Gun Control, right? Particularly since private gun ownership is at an all time high..
Anyway, I didn't see the point in continuing reading an article that used faulty and/or selective data drawing conclusions based on a faulty premise.
At what number of people in the caravans makes it a crisis. 50,000? 100,000?
By mcfarm - Jan. 12, 2019, 9:29 a.m.
"tim the truth is out there. the libs have dropped the working class. the libs need the illegals and their vote to maintain control, status and life style. who can forget or forgive LBJ bragging that _______ will be voting dem for generations ...this is the same game, new group"
Holy Cow mcfarm,
I can't believe that you just used that word on the forum.
Personally, I believe its a dumb word that one side gives too much power too and allows themselves to be hurt and play victims and over play the race card when its used. However, despite that, its a crystal clear fact that it does create hurt and is a strong indication of hatred and racism when used freely by white people.
Too bad you stopped reading. But that is in line with the anti intellectual president we have. He doesn't like reading either.
To answer Lacey.
We have 300 million citizens living here. Given that immigrant families commit crimes in lower numbers than US citizens and add to the tax base and grow our economy, I'd say we could take a million a year. But if you are a scaredy cat we can limit our economic growth and humanitarian efforts to something less than that. Trump calls them criminals. Fake news from a fake president.
I know heartless conservatives like to trot out anecdotes of immigrant crimes. But that is not persuasive in making policy.
Still, I'd be happy to capitulate in to the toddler president who is having a tantrum just to get through it.
Give him his wall.
I am not against reading. I am a voracious reader, and am certainly not "anti-intellectual". I just value my time and garnering information from an agenda driven article with an obvious and apparent bias is just not a good use of it
Illegals do NOT vote. Too little payoff (one vote) for too much risk (legal troubles/deportation). Never mind that conservatives and Trump (whatever he is) offer zero proof though they repeat it over and over. Trump is good at propaganda (ooops, I mean PR)
LOL, yeah, illegals don't vote. Too risky. But they will publicly participate in publicly televised protests demanding rights normally reserved for citizens. They'' take part in televised interviews demanding in-state tuitions because, gosh darn it, they live in state, and Obama will come right and tell them to go ahead and vote.
But, we sure don't want photo id's, no sireeeee!! Lib-dems do terrible in states that require photo id. How much more proof of voter disenfranchisement do you need than that?
I said we cannot forget or forgive LBJ Mike. And it was his quote, not mine, Do not know really how to condemn it without describing what he and the dems of his did to minorities back then and what they are trying today...just put a blank like you did I guess is the best option.....sorry again
When I reference LBJ's famous quote, I use just enough letters to get the message across. Good, bad or indifferent, some words are too ugly to use, and IMO, that is one.
thanks for the joke of the day...."illegals do not vote"
Setting aside the fact that 100% of them have committed the crime of illegal entry, the statement that the crime rate of illegal immigrants is lower than the general population is at best patently false, but in reality, ludicrous.
"My SCAAP-extrapolated crime figures actually are lower than those calculated by John Lott. Using Arizona Department of Corrections data spanning 1985–2017, Lott calculates that illegal immigrants in Arizona aged 18-35, for example, are 250 percent more likely to commit crimes than young U.S. citizens. Further, such illegal immigrants commit more serious crimes — such as murder, robbery, and sexual assault."
The article does clearly distort the presentation of stats in a very biased way.
For instance, only 20% of fentanyl is seized on the open border, not at posts of entry. Dugh! That's what the problem is.......the fentanyl NOT being seized. Fentanyl being seized is not hurting/killing Americans.
Of course then, there must be MUCH more than 20% of it if the open border is only getting that much. But just 20%+ and the other drugs make this well worth having the barrier but even disregarding the drugs issue, we need the barrier.
The graph that they use to make recent immigration look low/small goes back to 1990 so that it can include some much bigger numbers in the past appear to dwarf recent years.
But when they want to make recent immigration of families look big, they change the time frame and use a graph that goes back 2 years, to 2016 because it shows the recent increase vs the bottom a couple of years ago.
This is a big no, no in authentically graphing data that you want to compare. In this case, since it does in fact distort it in the direction of the point they want to make, we must assume its intentional/dishonest. ............but I'm betting they know that 99% of people reading the article will not catch that trick.
I know you want to have a proper forum and proper wording used
But my head spins when I try to use PC terms
I don't think MC was wrong. A quote is a quote.
What do the history books say.
"Joke of the day"....
You have absolutely ZERO evidence of illegals voting. But don't let that stop you. Flame on!!
Just a few thoughts about your linked article...
First, coming from the NYT we already must assume that their report is heavily biased and some of the "facts' may be false..
second, the graph shows a decline of "arrests", not illegal border crossings. One must then ask, have the attempted border crossings declined, or has the successful percentage of apprehensions declined?
and then it says "Undetected illegal border crossings have dropped at an even faster rate, from 851,000 in 2006 to approximately 62,00" Hellooooo, how can you count something that's "undetected"????
Then it says that the DEA states that most of the incoming heroine is seized at ports of entry. Well, of course... that's where they have drug-sniffing dogs. I could also show you videos of long columns of men (many of them with assault rifles), carrying huge backpacks, orderly marching across our border, detected only by unmanned hidden cameras.I would assume, that is where the big bulk of drugs is smuggled into the US.
and to JOJ...
you said "illegals don't vote", and responded to mcfarm "You have absolutely ZERO evidence of illegals voting."
actually..... in California, illegals are allowed (and encouraged) to get legitimate drivers licenses. The process of obtaining a drivers licence automatically registers the applicant to vote. You have no evidence that they don't use this opportunity to vote.
the main question.... is there really a crisis, or is this just an annoyance?
It seems to me that a recent report of 26,000 adults with children being apprehended in ONE month alone, at a small section of our border in Texas, really is a "crisis". These people don't dig tunnels, like drug cartels do.... these people would not have crossed, had there been a proper wall.
Some famous people seem to agree...
"we need a fence at our Southern borderl"
"we need a fence at our southern borderl"
"We meed a fence at our Southern borderl"
It's just recently that walls and fences are considered to be "immoral"
Let's take a look at the same situation but how the media framed it under Obama:
The Washington Post wrote in 2014, “White House requests $3.7 billion in emergency funds for border crisis,”.....when Obama was president:
“Daniel's journey: How thousands of children are creating a crisis in America.” from CNN.....but when Obama was president:
“The hypocrisy, unfortunately, is no longer stunning. It's utterly predictable,” The Hill media guru Joe Concha told Fox News.
Concha said much of America’s political media “is pre-conditioned to oppose anything the president supports,” with the coverage of the immigration fight the latest example.
“For years, we heard about how horrible it was for U.S. troops to be in places like Syria or Afghanistan. Trump proposes pulling them out, and suddenly they're for keeping them there,” Concha said. “Same thing with the border.”
Forbes was brief and to the point on Thursday, publishing a headline: “There is no border crisis.”
The Washington Post’s political correspondent Dan Balz penned an analysis headlined, “Trump used the Oval Office to try to create a border crisis.” The New York Times tweeted, “President Trump is set to travel to Texas to address a crisis on the Mexican border that Democrats say does not exist.”
"Democrats, with the aid of a duplicitous mainstream media, now call the very positions they held as recently as a couple of years ago ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’ or ‘xenophobic,’" conservative strategist Chris Barron told Fox News. "They accuse the president of acting like a tyrant and a fascist for the exact same policies Obama carried out. They deny a crisis at the border after they themselves claimed there was one."
I am not a republican. I watch CNN as much as Fox. I am for an increase in LEGAL immigration of people that follow laws to get into our country. I am strongly for an increase in humanitarian aid to poor, undeveloped countries.
I choose my sources carefully so that they are authentic and backed up with data/facts and are not conspiracy theory sources.
Surprising ally: President Obama's former Border Patrol chief explains his support for President Trump's border wall
Yes, we have a crisis, it's called Donald J. Trump in the White House.
Trump is a crisis for those who want the US to be a socialist nanny state. For the rest of us, not so much. Many of us are not afraid of adult responsibilities.
Yeah, we know that you are willing to tolerate having a sociopathic, narcissistic, criminally insane a$$hole in the White House instead of a democratic socialist. That speaks volumes about your character.
Coming from a Hillary supporter, I'll give your comment all the respect it's due :-)