Trump hardens stance on Mexico border, says 15,000 troops could be sent

[mikebike]

25 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

The ultimate questions are: 

 

Is the United States going to have a secure border, or an open border?

 

If the former, how do those who reflexively oppose President Trump propose to do it? Its real easy to hurl insults at him, and those who share his view that our border needs to be secure, what concrete proposals do the "insulters" have? What have they done to effectuate their proposals?

 

As one who has lived in a border state, and may be returning to same, Im very interested in concrete solutions to the problem of this caravan, and the problem of illegal immigration in general.

 

 

Cannot speak for all the “insulters”, but can give you some thoughts...

 

1. Enforce existing law;

2. Hire enough staff to properly enforce existing law

3. Introduce new legislation where necessary;

4. Hire sufficient staff to process claimants;

5. Update protocol and capital spent on monitoring (electronic?) those released until court date (hiring enough staff to process will greatly reduce waiting anyway)

6. Upgrade facilities to be able to accommodate everyone in a humane way, including families and children.

 

The bonus is hiring and facilities upgrades will boost the local economies.

Edited November 4, 2018 by mikebike

[Nyezhov]

11 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Cannot speak for all the “insulters”, but can give you some thoughts...

 

1. Enforce existing law;

2. Hire enough staff to properly enforce existing law

3. Introduce new legislation where necessary;

4. Hire sufficient staff to process claimants;

5. Update protocol and capital spent on monitoring (electronic?) those released until court date (hiring enough staff to process will greatly reduce waiting anyway)

6. Upgrade facilities to be able to accommodate everyone in a humane way, including families and children.

 

The bonus is hiring and facilities upgrades will boost the local economies.

In otherwords, legislation and appropriations. Thats fine, wasnt there already an attempt to get a bill passed? Didnt get very far did it? And isnt there a court decision that eliminates number 6?

 

Regardless, there is too much finger pointing and not enough action. How about this solution: All asylum claims are suspended for a 5 year period until the backlog is cleared up? Or how about limiting asylum cases to situations where one can show political, religious or ethnic persecution, instead of just "my country sucks so let me in"? Or require that asylum cases be subject to an organizational sponsorship that would be responsible for the asylum seeker"? 

 

No matter what one side proposes, the other side will oppose. Thats fine, compromise is the spice of life. Meanwhile, the caravan files suit in Federal Court claiming their "rights" are violated. No wonder the polls show that Immigration is a hot issue.

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Nyezhov

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

In otherwords, legislation and appropriations. Thats fine, wasnt there already an attempt to get a bill passed? Didnt get very far did it? And isnt there a court decision that eliminates number 6?

 

Regardless, there is too much finger pointing and not enough action. How about this solution: All asylum claims are suspended for a 5 year period until the backlog is cleared up? Or how about limiting asylum cases to situations where one can show political, religious or ethnic persecution, instead of just "my country sucks so let me in"? Or require that asylum cases be subject to an organizational sponsorship that would be responsible for the asylum seeker"? 

 

No matter what one side proposes, the other side will oppose. Thats fine, compromise is the spice of life. Meanwhile, the caravan files suit in Federal Court claiming their "rights" are violated. No wonder the polls show that Immigration is a hot issue.

 

 

Immigration, in the sense Trump supporters refer to it, is mostly a contrived issue dreamed up by the Trump campaign.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Morch

[sirineou]

49 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Is the United States going to have a secure border, or an open border?

Are these the only options or can there be something in between? 

 

[Nyezhov]

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Are these the only options or can there be something in between? 

 

That depends on how you define "secure". To my mind a secure border is you dont come in unless we let you in under well defined rules. Whats your definition?

[mikebike]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

That depends on how you define "secure". To my mind a secure border is you dont come in unless we let you in under well defined rules. Whats your definition?

My definition isn’t that unsimilar to yours, except it accounts for the reality that no border, home, or room can be truly secure if someone really wants to get in.

 

Question for you...

 

Since most illegals enter legally by air and just don’t leave, how do you “secure” that sort of entry?

Edited November 4, 2018 by mikebike

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

That depends on how you define "secure". To my mind a secure border is you dont come in unless we let you in under well defined rules. Whats your definition?

 

Why don't you start by defining "open border"? Or comment on the realistic chances of having a totally impregnable border.

[Srikcir]

48 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Thats fine, wasnt there already an attempt to get a bill passed?

The majority Republican congress persons failed.

The minority Democrats congress persons were ignored.

51 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Or require that asylum cases be subject to an organizational sponsorship that would be responsible for the asylum seeker"? 

If you want to privatize immigration, who needs a controlled border?

 

51 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Thats fine, compromise is the spice of life.

So are open borders myths.

https://www.businessinsider.com/immigration-myths-open-us-borders-debunked-2018-8#myth-7-theyll-never-go-back-7

 

[EVENKEEL]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

That you put your trust in a person who lies, on average, ten times a day over somebody else just because she reports with a progressive point of view really says something about your character.  You can start laughing with a clear conscience the day that Maddow breaks the land speed record for lying like Trump has.

Thank You, for the compliment. Maddow         

[Nyezhov]

46 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Since most illegals enter legally by air and just don’t leave, how do you “secure” that sort of entry?

Is that a statistical fact from a reputable provider?

 

26 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The majority Republican congress persons failed.

The minority Democrats congress persons were ignored.

In what way?

 

27 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

If you want to privatize immigration, who needs a controlled border?

I dont see the connection. How is organizational sponsorship (or even personal) equivalent to privatization? Sponsors are already a part of law, viz: K1s.

[Nyezhov]

51 minutes ago, mikebike said:

My definition isn’t that unsimilar to yours, except it accounts for the reality that no border, home, or room can be truly secure if someone really wants to get in.

Spot on and we have way too much border to make it like Israel. Which means a combo of "walls" as that can be loosely defined and strict enforcement with no loopholes.

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Is that a statistical fact from a reputable provider?

Yes.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

The ultimate questions are:  Is the United States going to have a secure border, or an open border?

 

It's always nice when you can pretend that the issue is strictly black and white, with absolutely no shades of gray in between.

[Nyezhov]

58 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Yes.

care to share?

[Nyezhov]

46 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

It's always nice when you can pretend that the issue is strictly black and white, with absolutely no shades of gray in between.

How can there be a shade of gray in this area?  You border is secure or open....it cant be half secure or partially open. Either the USA will have a secure border where immigration is allowed under enforced rules or it will have a free for all, which is where the recent caravan comes in.....

 

An analogy....You are either pregnant or you arent

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed. 

[attrayant]

10 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

How can there be a shade of gray in this area?  You border is secure or open....it cant be half secure or partially open. Either the USA will have a secure border where immigration is allowed under enforced rules or it will have a free for all, which is where the recent caravan comes in.

 

We had a sensible pre-Trump immigration policy and stance.  There was no reason to change it.  We had a reasonably secure border (I suppose you'll call that an "open" border since it wasn't air-tight) based on the fact that illegal crossings were coming down nicely in the decade before Trump.

 

We took something that was working and fixed it.

[Becker]

18 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

How can there be a shade of gray in this area?  You border is secure or open....it cant be half secure or partially open. Either the USA will have a secure border where immigration is allowed under enforced rules or it will have a free for all, which is where the recent caravan comes in.....

 

An analogy....You are either pregnant or you arent

Secure is a relative term. You can say a border is secure, mostly secure, partially secure etc. Not so with pregnant so your analogy is wrong.

 

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

How can there be a shade of gray in this area?  You border is secure or open....it cant be half secure or partially open. Either the USA will have a secure border where immigration is allowed under enforced rules or it will have a free for all, which is where the recent caravan comes in.....

 

An analogy....You are either pregnant or you arent

This is like saying how can you have a safe nation where there is crime? Either there is no crime or the nation is not safe. 

As for pregnancy, It's strictly binary. It deals with the state of one human being. Security is a matter of populations. You know, multiple persons and percentages thereof.  

[EVENKEEL]

4 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

We had a sensible pre-Trump immigration policy and stance.  There was no reason to change it.  We had a reasonably secure border (I suppose you'll call that an "open" border since it wasn't air-tight) based on the fact that illegal crossings were coming down nicely in the decade before Trump.

 

We took something that was working and fixed it.

define nicely......

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

define nicely......

 

Based on data from CBP, I define "coming down nicely" as being near the bottom of a historic 40-year low.  Here's the data from CBP:

 

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/BP Southwest Border Sector Apps FY1960 - FY2017.pdf

 

And here's a visual of that data from 2000 onward:

 

 

 

[Srikcir]

Recent alt. FOX News coverage of caravan

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/04/business/saturday-night-live-migrant-march/index.html

[Nyezhov]

31 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Based on data from CBP, I define "coming down nicely" as being near the bottom of a historic 40-year low.  Here's the data from CBP:

 

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/BP Southwest Border Sector Apps FY1960 - FY2017.pdf

 

And here's a visual of that data from 2000 onward:

 

 

 

how do the arrests correlate with the number of illegals actually here? 

[attrayant]

32 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

how do the arrests correlate with the number of illegals actually here? 

 

They are statistically correlated, like this:

 

The more people who cross the border illegally, the more there are to arrest.  The fewer people cross he border illegally, the fewer there are to arrest.

 

The correlation isn't perfect, since it assumes confounding factors (like the number of CBP officers, funding levels and availability of equipment) remain constant, but the overall correlation is sound.

[Opl]

White Militias Are Going to the Border, Inspired by Trump’s Call to Arms 

"They have heard the warnings from the president and from Fox News. that caravans of Central American migrants moving through Mexico pose a massive threat to American security.  In fact, they are now forming their own caravans and will be following actual American military troops to the border areas where they believe the invasion will occur. When The Post asked if his group would be using weapons against the migrants, McGauley laughed and said, “This is Texas, man.”"

 

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/11/04/white-militias-are-going-to-the-border-inspired-by-trumps-call-to-arms.html

Edited November 4, 2018 by Opl

[Nyezhov]

40 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

They are statistically correlated, like this:

 

The more people who cross the border illegally, the more there are to arrest.  The fewer people cross he border illegally, the fewer there are to arrest.

 

The correlation isn't perfect, since it assumes confounding factors (like the number of CBP officers, funding levels and availability of equipment) remain constant, but the overall correlation is sound.

And percentage wise how many do they arrest? And of those arrested, how many end up in sanctuary cities? Or reenter? Or are never deported? 

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as the replies:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

 

A troll post has been removed as well. 

[Credo]

11 hours ago, sukhumvitneon said:

And that would be?

Two states, Arizona and Nevada (maybe others):

 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/midterms-2018-countdown/h_18f9e9318a63d0dc8c294bbd8eabfeea

 

[DM07]

14 hours ago, Opl said:

White Militias Are Going to the Border, Inspired by Trump’s Call to Arms 

"They have heard the warnings from the president and from Fox News. that caravans of Central American migrants moving through Mexico pose a massive threat to American security.  In fact, they are now forming their own caravans and will be following actual American military troops to the border areas where they believe the invasion will occur. When The Post asked if his group would be using weapons against the migrants, McGauley laughed and said, “This is Texas, man.”"

 

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/11/04/white-militias-are-going-to-the-border-inspired-by-trumps-call-to-arms.html

Finally, all these weapons for deer- hunting and fighting a tyrannical government, pay off!

Yeeeeeeeeehat,'Murica!

????

[Credo]

42 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Finally, all these weapons for deer- hunting and fighting a tyrannical government, pay off!

Yeeeeeeeeehat,'Murica!

????

And this is going to work out so well:

 

Texas hunters who accidentally shot each other blamed undocumented immigrants, police reveal

A hunting guide and his client accidentally shot each other and then blamed it on undocumented migrants, police in the US have said.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/texas-hunters-blamed-immigrants-after-accidentally-shooting-each-other-a7591471.html