Ah yes the old "Islam is not a real religion" defense. I had thought that went by the wayside when Michelle Bachman left Congress. Example #infinity of why we have separation of church and state in the Constitution.

I'm sure with that level of corruption Scott Walker will find a welcome home in the Trump administration. There surely is enough openings for him.

He can take Bevin with him. His own corruption has been well documented.

Gotta partially disagree here. The Democrats are willing to spend more money on this in general but they haven't been willing to do what most Republicans would consider actual border security. Notably, all the proposals that I can remember at least include a path to citizenship for people who entered illegally, which is a non-negotiable for many on the right. Ditto with support of sanctuary cities, which is considered seditious by many on that wing. I think this is like some other issues where there's sharp disagreement; both parties are willing to try to do something, or at least to talk about it, but there are core, fundamental non-negotiables on each side that the opposing party will never accept. Which probably means roughly the status quo continuing for the forseeable future, and continued, escalating barking at the sky about it.

Disclaimer; before someone asks or jumps to conclusions, I'm against the wall 100%. Much better to cut off the source; harsh penalties against those who employ illegal-immigrant labor.

All but Western Europe, really, and even that comes with strings attached, since Spain and France have non-trivial Muslim populations.

Right. There are enough elected GOPers to kill any compromise deal because they want reduced non-Euro immigration, legal and illegal.

At different times the Dems have agreed to the wall, ending family reunification, a much stronger E-Verify, a guest worker program, a merit system, funding for other enforcement measures, and putting verification of enforcement before other immigration reforms. Every time the GOP has rejected the deal. The Dems have been willing to compromise, and enough GOPers have been insistent on not compromising, so nothing has happened.

One thing worth mentioning is that border security is frankly a non-issue being shouted loudly - immigration isn't anywhere near its peak levels and hasn't been increasingly hugely or anything for over a decade ... immigrants also commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens which is unsurprising when you think about it (ie. non-citizens have potentially far harsher punishments available to them in terms of deportation etc.).

:eek:

Holy Shit. The question I always wonder is this: Are they knowingly doing this stuff (the Pols) or are they so out of their element that they're just taken advantage of?

GWB had an immigration bill rolling pretty well just before 9/11 and that screwed everything up. Obama had Congress his first 2 years, nothing much happened. I don't think its as clear cut as Dems want immigration reform and GOP do not, its the details that matter and the compromises that need to happen.

However, I will concede that Trump is against unauthorized immigration and it is focused on south of the border (because that is what he campaigned on).

Mark, you and I continue to disagree on this. I agree it has declined but there is still a problem.

Unauthorized people/immigration in the country is 10.7M or about 3.3% of population. Of this 5.4M Mexicans, Central America another 1.9M.

Unauthorized immigration in 2017 is about 310K from south of the border

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Of the 1,980 miles of border in the south, about 580+ miles is "fenced".

We can differ on why, how to reduce etc. but I respectfully disagree that its a non-issue.

Don't know why you say there is effectively a border and a wall but you do bring up a good point about bypassing the wall and using the ocean. Its true the wall won't stop drugs, bad guys - if they want to come, they will have the means.

Pretty obvious to me that the ocean will be a significant obstacle for all the others. But I can definitely see a firestorm once bodies from inevitable failed attempts start to appear on the coast.

Holistic immigration reform (e.g. definitely guest worker programs for south of the border) is what we all want, not just a wall and its accompanying systems, support etc. Trump is too one dimensional on this for sure but Congress hasn't acted. There have been times when both parties owned the Presidency & Congress but did anything happen?

So until that happens, I'll take the wall as a stop gap.

At multiple times since 2000 there has been a majority willing to pass an immigration reform bill, but that majority did not include a majority of Republicans in the House. Because of that, these bills haven't gotten votes. This isn't about a dysfunctional Congress, it's about a faction of the GOP refusing to compromise on their anti-immigration desires.

Trump could actually spend the 94% of last year's budget on border security sitting unused before demanding more.

In November China's purchases of soybeans from the U.S. dropped to zero.

Meanwhile, in unrelated news, Canada and Australia's soybean farmers are selling record amounts to China under new TPP rules.

Your own source says that this number is down 13% in the last decade.


3 Charts That Show What's Actually Happening Along The Southern Border : NPR

It's been under 500k a year since 2010. In 2000 it was over 1.6 million. That's a a drop of over 80% from 2000 to 2017.

From the mid 1980s to the mid 2000s, it was near or over a million every year.

• Chart: A Long View of Migration Across the Southwest Border | Statista


The total number of of immigrants who illegally entered the US is steadily falling, and the number of people crossing the southern border illegally is down over 80% over the last two decades.

Sure, its gone down. Just because its going down its no longer an issue? Its the crossings and its the ones currently in the US.


From 1990, total unauthorized was 3.5M in the US. In 2016 it is 10.7M (give or take). Peak of 12.2M in 2007.

This and the 310K annual is an issue IMO.

So basically, when ICE was established along the heavier-handed approach to illegal immigration post-9/11.

You are being so overly obtuse it is painful. Something like 2/3 of all illegal immigration cases are visa overstays (I think the number may be larger since that was several years ago). Think of it this way, erecting a wall is like putting a band-aid on a stab wound. Sure it's something, but it does not actually stop the growing problem.

I just don't understand how reasonably intelligent people can say it is a good use of money if it addresses a fraction of the problem that is actually shrinking. It's like eating every day at McDonalds but ordering only diet coke to try and stop gaining weight.

This. The fact that it has declined means that it's less of a problem than it used to be. It doesn't mean that it isn't one. Among other things, it's a plain example of the whole frog-in-the-kettle phenomenon that over 10 million people are living here who didn't go through the proper process and weren't approved to be here gets met with a collective shrug.

There were over 100,000 visa overstays from Canada in 2017. If this were about anything other than white nationalism, we'd be talking about the crisis from the north.

It comes down to the impact those 10 million are having on our country. Do they commit crimes at a lower rate than your average American? Are they a boost or a drain on the economy? If these people are a net positive for the country then it shouldn't be a surprise that it's met with a collective shrug.

Either way could/should we improve the way they enter the country? Probably. But as long as the GOP insists on a wall and blocking people from certain countries from entering it's never going to happen. The Dems are the ones in this instance that have attempted to find a middle ground and the GOP isn't budging on certain things that take the entire idea of bipartisan immigration reform off the table.

I have come to the conclusion that no matter which way I skin it, it always boils down to more than 0% racism in each case.

Again, this is a very one-sided view of the situation. Democrats have favored a wall in the recent past, and they have their own things they won't budge on which also make bipartisan reform impossible. I mentioned what those are in my initial post on this subject. You can't have anything bipartisan when one side thinks an eight-figure number of people here illegally is tantamount to an invasion, and another doesn't even see that as a problem in and of itself. The two views are too far apart for anything bipartisan to happen. Trying to find a middle ground when you hold onto core assumptions you know the other side won't accept isn't legitimate compromise; it's political theatre, just like what Republicans did with the ACA.

Again, at multiple times since 2000 there has been a bipartisan majority of congress willing to pass immigration reform, but that majority did not include a majority of Republicans, so the GOP refused to allow votes to be taken.

What things have the GOP budged at all on when it comes to immigration? The Dems have shown a willingness to compromise in multiple areas, which has been noted here and even acknowledged indirectly by Trump.

When you have one side throwing comprises on the table and another that is completely unwilling to compromise you take your items off the table until the other side is willing to actually talk. That's where we are right now.

As I've said, unless these people are actually damaging our country (and the data suggests otherwise) there's no rush to actually do anything.

I've already addressed that directly. Nobody's responded on point. If someone chooses too, I'm happy to discuss it further.

And let's not forget the bill the Dems are advocating is a compromise and was expected to be passed on voice votes until Trump decided to blow it all up.

You say bipartisan reform is impossible, and it is, but only because the GOP has refused to allow a vote to happen. There have been multiple bipartisan reform efforts that commanded a majority of congress. The problem isn't a dysfunctional congress, it's a faction of the GOP driven by white nationalism.

And how could you give Trump republicans money for a wall with shit like this happening:

Mueller Refers Trump Immigration Case to FBI | Law & Crime

because remember, now there is no smoke until there's actually a fire burning on your clothes and perhaps even some of your skin.... no smoke. no smoke.

Please see #13775 for a better definition of what I mean re: the wall.

How many of the 2/3 overstays are from south of the border?

Let's put things into context. Canada + Europe + Oceania is 5% of the total population of illegals.

Mexico is 53% and top 4 from south of the border is 64%.

Profile of the Unauthorized Population - US | migrationpolicy.org

I'm pretty sure if Canada + Europe + Oceania was 64%, you would see similar-but-admittedly-less concern.

What does that have to do with the wall?

Trying to put things into context re: Miked post.

Forget I asked if you don't think its relevant.

If they have a visa, a wall will not keep them out, they are here LEGALLY. I'll repeat that, if they have a visa, you can build whatever wall you want and it won't help. So you are addressing a small piece of the pie that is actually decreasing on its own (because it's much easier to visit and overstay). So that is why reasonable and intelligent people are against it.

If they are here legally, we aren't talking about them, they are welcome.

If they enter here legally and then overstay, Trump does want to kick out the ones already here illegally.

Is overstay really the main issue re: the wall? Overstay statistics cover only air-and-sea, not land crossings so I see that as a red herring argument.

The answer is a holistic immigration reform plan to address the supply, demand, access routes etc. Both GOP and Dems have failed to pass this when they were in power. So until then, I'll take a wall and accompanying monitoring, systems etc. until that gets done.

He's saying that 2/3 of all illegal immigrants in the US are illegal because they overstayed on visas. If they got here via a visa, they arrived legally. Hence, 67% of all illegal immigrants got here legally, and a wall will not address 67% of the illegal immigration problem.

I do understand that. My research actually shows its anywhere from 42-50% not 2/3.

My response is -

1) Trump wants to kick out the illegals already here in addition to the Wall. Kick them out and keep them from coming back in.
2) I agree the wall won't do it by itself. You need to have holistic immigration reform to go with it.
3) While the holistic immigration reform works itself through Congress, lets do the wall to address the approx 310K annually that is coming through the borders illegally (and to keep the ones we do kick-out from returning)

I am assuming most anti-wall do believe there is an "issue" its just that they don't think a wall only will solve the issue.

I agree with this. My point is - until Congress can get it done with holistic immigration reform (e.g. w/guest worker program), let's build a wall with its accompanying manpower and systems, let Trump kick out the illegals already here (especially the felons but I'm all for some sort of DACA solution) ... because it could be a very long time before Congress does anything.

'cept the last time a 2000 mile wall got built, it accomplished absolutely nothing except the creation of a tourist hot spot thousands of years later.

Have fun with that?

On another note:

Mueller's Investigation Data Includes a Nude Selfie, Russian Company Tells Court

Your brain has now substituted the worst possible subject, given the context, and you are desperately searching for brain bleach.

You're welcome.

Assume you mean the Great Wall of China? Good thing the unauthorized south of the border is coming for economic reasons and not with guns to invade.

OTH, the wall that Israel built is working pretty well. Unfortunately, we won't get close to their 99% rate.

Border fence in Israel cut illegal immigration by 99 percent, GOP senator says | PolitiFact



But let's go with the folks on the ground. Unless you think they are all white supremacist, they lend some credibility to the discussion.

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds - Washington Times

That's the one.


So, uh, those economic reasons would be "in search of a better life."

If that's the impetus, and not "invasion," then the folks calling for the use of lethal force to deter would-be border crossers are...what, exactly? Sociopaths? Wastes of genetic material utterly without the ability to exercise empathy for those less fortunate than themselves?


It turns out the shorter a wall or fence has to be, the better it works.

The difficulty of border enforcement increases logarithmically the longer a barrier gets.

A wall might make it more difficult, but here's the rub, yeah?

If you think the level of illegal border crossings is such that we have a crisis that only a "big, beautiful wall" can solve, what you're saying at the same time is "unless we commit to full-on Fortress Amerika, we cannot stop this. All we can do is divert it."

If you build a wall along the southern border, you're going to have to do the same thing along the Canadian border and significantly beef up the Coast Guard to enable them to more effectively patrol thousands of miles of coast to prevent human smuggling.

You can spend billions on a symbol that amounts to trying to plug countless leaking dikes, or you can look for solutions that don't amount to a giant monument to one man's penile insecurity.

It is an invasion. Just not one with guns.

Re: use of lethal force, I assume you mean shoot-first vs. what I assume Border Patrol has the right to do in using lethal force when necessary. If its the former, yes, they are wrong. If the latter, I find that reasonable.


That is not what I am saying. I agree that some others are saying this. I am hopeful most that want the Wall also want holistic immigration reform that address supply, demand, DACA, guest workers, better H1-B etc.


Maybe re: Canadian border at a later date they aren't really the problem. I guess its possible for south of the border to illegally get into Canada and then cross the border that way but minuscule/unlikely.

Canada+Europe+Oceania is only 5% of the problem. Let's deal with Mexico & Central American at 67%.

Profile of the Unauthorized Population - US | migrationpolicy.org

Question to you -

1) Do you think there is a problem with south of the border unauthorized immigrants?
2) If no, why not? If yes, what do you think is the solution?

wtf?

Then by your definition anyone entering the country who stays illegally is an 'invasion' - if an individual overstays their visa in your eyes they are advance scouts? ;)

Those figures are the totals for people present within the country at present - is there any data on the current yearly incoming illegal immigrants? ... I ask because the amount coming through the southern border has dropped hugely in recent years while a lot of H1B's (which many Europeans are on) haven't been renewed.

I would expect the amount of them from Mexico/Central America is partially biased by time and the different policies and enforcement that was present in the far past in the US when it was very easy for them to enter (up until the 1950's there was pretty much no enforcement from what I can tell).

I think the main problem is that the current administration is shouting loudly about an issue which has already largely resolved itself by the illegal immigration having dropped considerably over time already and is attempting to make it into a real issue by their own policies treating people applying for asylum as criminals.

For instance the caravans that Trump shouts about appear to mainly be going to legal entry points and applying for asylum - yet he shouts about them as criminals who are spreading disease and such in an attempt to rile up his base.

I will also reiterate that immigrating isn't something which people do lightly and most individuals doing so far (1) very motivated individuals, (2) when they immigrate they commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens, (3) contribute more to society in terms of taxes etc. than they take out.

In terms of border security I think that using standard sensible techniques rather than a wall would be the most sensible approach, hire more people and use technology more not least because a wall is ludicrous to consider in many areas due to terrain and such.

I don't believe in 'open borders' any more than anyone else - however I accept the DEA stats which indicate that 95% of drugs are smuggled via. container ship and nothing to do with the southern border (how are drugs smuggled into US and that immigrants have very good vetting by and large.

PS - I also think it is somewhat awful that the current administration takes no responsibility for the US having contributed to the causes which mean people leave their countries to try and move elsewhere, no one does that sort of thing lightly and often it is inspired by choices which richer countries have made in terms of supporting governments, wars, cutting support to the countries involved etc.
It is this side of things which I think the current administration is attempting to use to create a crisis that only they can solve - they're cutting support for countries abroad, pulling out of countries where US support has been regardless of whether it might cause genocide etc. ... all of which is likely to cause more civillians to evacuate untenable situations and become refugees.

And the way you know that simply isn't true is that the opportunities to address all those things in the last 20 years have been legion, and Republicans have refused to engage seriously. They're terrified of the word "amnesty," which conservative talk hosts have labeled anything that isn't "kick 'em all out."

As was pointed out upthread, the folks who want a wall also want immigration that's restricted to generally northern and western European countries (and we've seen that movie before, about a century ago).


And, as has ALSO been pointed out before, border crossings as a percentage of illegal immigration has dropped drastically in the last ten years for various reasons, while the elephant in the room - visa overstays (which was also how the 9/11 attackers entered the country) - has been fundamentally unaddressed.

But yeah, let's keep fucking that wa--I mean chicken.

Question to you -


I think the solution is a lot more complicated than "build the wall," because I think the issue is a lot more systemic than "block those border crossings."

A wall tackles symptoms, not the disease that causes them. If your claim is that 67% of illegal entries stem from Latin America, then the next question becomes "why are people traveling 3,000 km to reach our borders? What's causing that level of desperation?"

Trump loves to threaten to take aid away from countries that don't knuckle under to him, but you know what? Trump's own administration is projecting that the cost to complete the wall will be at *least* $18 billion for around 700 miles of "wall." Trump himself was demanding $25 billion in January. Even if you give the Trump Administration the benefit of the doubt and assume that those figures are closer to the truth than the $70 billion Democrats have said is more likely, you're still talking about a wall that approaches 100x in initial spending what we spend on economic aid to the entirety of Latin America annually.

But "let's spend a bit more annually to help our friends south of the border build a viable economic situation in their own countries so that their citizens don't travel 3000 kilometers in the desperate hope that the United States will provide them a better life for their families" isn't the same trophy to penile insecurity as that wall is.

Nor is "overhaul immigration requirements so that the folks who want to 'do it the right way' aren't spending years and years in immigration limbo."

So at the end of the day, it doesn't really MATTER what I think the solution is, because that solution will never see the light of day until and unless Republicans are evicted from control of the legislative and executive branches. They simply don't want anything that requires nuance when they can just tell their constituents that the wall is built and everything is solved forever re-elect me please.

You are a bright guy, but this statement is laughable given the current administrations take on this subject.

All you hear from Trump et al is we are under invasion, all they send us is their worst, they are all criminals, rapists, human traffickers, etc...they bring disease.

Their entire platform for trying to get the wall is one of fear. They scare the crap out of feeble minded Cletus, convincing him any day now a horde of brown people are going to show up to rape his daughter and force his son into injecting black tar heroine between his toes.

If pro wall people really thought they were here for economic reasons they would be welcomed. These people do jobs lazy Americans wont. This is purely conjecture, and maybe someone like Lungs could shed more light, but I would venture to say if we stopped ALL illegal immigration, farms would start dying out at a rapid rate.

I think this approach is all wrong.

You are looking at the wall as a temporary solution to a very long term issue. The cost, time, maintenance, etc...that comes with this wall isn't a stop gap until a better solution is found. You speak of it as if you are putting a wire fence up to stop deer from eating your garden until you can put up one made of wood.

Trump and his followers are looking at it as a permanent fix to stopping illegal immigration, which is ludicrous.

I would imagine if you got rid of all illegals, the American economy would collapse.

So are we still asking for $5 billion (remember Mexico is paying for it) for what likely amounts to nothing more than some “fencing”?

"To be honest, it's not a wall," Kelly told the paper. "The president still says 'wall' — oftentimes frankly he'll say 'barrier' or 'fencing,' now he's tended toward steel slats. But we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration, when we asked people what they needed and where they needed it."