Is this legal? No farangs welcome...

[webfact]

Trump administration warns of record illegal border crossings ahead of vote by Congress

By Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan

 

U.S. President Donald Trump greets the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) annual meeting at National Harbor near Washington, U.S., March 2, 2019. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration warned Republican lawmakers Tuesday about record numbers of illegal crossings at the southern border with Mexico as Congress appeared to be on the verge of terminating President Donald Trump's declaration of an emergency there.

 

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen visited the U.S. Capitol as the White House sought to discourage more Republican defections on the measure rebuking the president. Republican senators had a "spirited discussion" on the matter, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

 

Trump declared an emergency at the border Feb. 15, saying this allows him to use money that Congress has appropriated for other purposes in order to build a border wall. Trump says the wall is needed to stop illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

 

The Democratic-majority House of Representatives already has approved a measure to overturn Trump's border wall emergency, and the Republican-run Senate is expected to follow suit by the end of next week now that four Senate Republicans say they will join Democrats in passing it.

 

But there does not appear to be a super-majority in Congress to override an expected Trump veto.

 

Emerging from a lunchtime meeting with Nielsen, some lawmakers said she made a strong presentation about a crisis at the border, with record numbers of immigrants showing up.

 

"Secretary Nielsen just released the latest apprehension numbers," with 60,000 apprehended at the border in January and 76,000 in February, Montana Republican Steve Daines said. "Based on the current trend lines this will be an all-time record year for illegal apprehensions" at the southern border, he said.

 

Daines supported Trump's emergency declaration, saying, "I am a northern border-state senator with a southern border crisis. It is drugs, it is meth, it is destroying our communities and families in Montana."

 

But Nielsen's presentation did not convince Senator Rand Paul, who announced at the weekend that he would join three other Republican senators to vote to block Trump's border emergency. This is enough for it to pass, assuming all Senate Democrats back it as well.

 

"To me it has nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with whether or not the president can spend money that Congress didn’t give to him," Paul told reporters after the lunch.

 

Paul said he thought there are at least another six Republican senators who feel the same way he does but "I don't know if they will all follow through with it" and vote to nullify the president's declaration.

 

Paul also said he had spoken to Trump about the matter. "I talked to the president the other night about it. I think he understands that I have strong beliefs that the Constitution indicates only the Congress should spend money."

 

Last month, Congress rejected Trump's demand for $5.7 billion to help build a border wall, prompting him to take unilateral action. Democrats insist there are better, less expensive ways to improve border security than building border walls.

 

If the Senate joins the House in voting to overturn Trump's emergency declaration, the president's anticipated veto would be the first of his presidency. During his first two years as president, Republicans controlled the Senate, House and White House.

 

That is in contrast to Trump's three immediate predecessors who all vetoed bills during the periods in which their party controlled the Congress and White House - and is a reflection of how closely Republican lawmakers and Trump have worked in tandem while in power.

 

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Sonya Hepinstall and Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-03-06

[Thailand]

So the hordes of terrorists with their wives and children are arriving at the border but not actually crossing unless legally processed? 

Even border security have been saying that illegals numbers are way down. 

No wall required, just a new president.

[Tug]

Donald is absolutely terrified of latinas and honest working folk who want to better their lives and those of their children time for new management 

[Lungstib]

Considering the distant relationship to the truth that he has cultivated so far, believing this man comes with great risk. Almost everything he now says is looked upon with scepticism even by many of the Republican party. He just keeps on digging.

[animalmagic]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

"Based on the current trend lines this will be an all-time record year for illegal apprehensions" at the southern border, he said.

If they are doing such a good job of catching them now, why do they need a wall?

[alanrchase]

According to Trump he has built a lot of wall. The wall does not seem to be working. 

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.   Please don't feed the troll.

[mtls2005]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

"Secretary Nielsen just released the latest apprehension numbers," with 60,000 apprehended at the border in January and 76,000 in February, Montana Republican Steve Daines said. "Based on the current trend lines this will be an all-time record year for illegal apprehensions" at the southern border, he said.

 

Apprehensions at an all-time high.

 

Isn't that a "good thing"?

 

Can a "wall" apprehend someone?

 

 

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

60,000 apprehended at the border in January and 76,000 in February

These figures may not be very meaningful in themselves without (as usual for the Trump administration) some context.

Those apprehensions apparently include people who are deemed "inadmissible" at the Southwest border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. DHS considers a person "inadmissible" when they appear at a port of entry without proper documentation for legal entry into the U.S. Those "apprehended" are individuals "caught trying to enter illegally between ports of entry."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/crossing-attempts-at-us-southwest-border-triple-in-march-from-year-ago.html
There doesn't appear to be separate figures for each category in DHS reporting.

 

[NoBrainer]

4 hours ago, animalmagic said:

If they are doing such a good job of catching them now, why do they need a wall?

It's called Catch & Release, they want to get caught so they can get a free medical check up & a ride into town.

[Ulic]

14 hours ago, webfact said:

with 60,000 apprehended at the border in January and 76,000 in February

 

Sounds like big numbers and a crisis to me. I wonder how many are not apprehended?

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, Ulic said:

Sounds like big numbers and a crisis to me.

 

But not an emergency.  Certainly not one that can be squelched by building a wall ten years in the future.

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by attrayant

[Redline]

Wow, the numbers just mysteriously changed drastically-funny how that happened ???? somebody got a promise that will never be kept  ????

[VincentRJ]

19 hours ago, animalmagic said:

If they are doing such a good job of catching them now, why do they need a wall?

If the number of illegals that are caught has risen, it's a reasonable assumption that the number who have not been caught, and who have successfully crossed the border, has also risen. By how much cannot be known, because they have not been caught.

 

If the border security is a serious problem, the increase in the number of illegals that have not been caught might be far greater than the increase in the number who have been caught. Got it?

[Credo]

39 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If the number of illegals that are caught has risen, it's a reasonable assumption that the number who have not been caught, and who have successfully crossed the border, has also risen. By how much cannot be known, because they have not been caught.

 

If the border security is a serious problem, the increase in the number of illegals that have not been caught might be far greater than the increase in the number who have been caught. Got it?

It is a different demographic crossing the border than in years past.   Mexican's crossing the border, by and large were looking for work and did not want to get caught or stopped.   Now, many of those crossing are from Central America and applying for asylum.   They do want to get caught/stopped.   They cannot make an asylum claim without presenting themselves to the Border Patrol.    They also have a time limit on how long after an illegal entry they can make a claim.   

 

 

[jerojero]

Lying scumbag. Nuff said.

[animalmagic]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If the number of illegals that are caught has risen, it's a reasonable assumption that the number who have not been caught, and who have successfully crossed the border, has also risen. By how much cannot be known, because they have not been caught.

 

If the border security is a serious problem, the increase in the number of illegals that have not been caught might be far greater than the increase in the number who have been caught. Got it?

Thank you for the enlightenment, I've 'Got it'; I had actually realised that he was working on assumptions.

However it is an assumption that cannot be proved to be a reasonable one; it is simply an assumption.  Why should he be allowed to choose that assumption over the one where it can be assumed that the current border security is more effective as evidenced by the increase in numbers apprehended?

[mtls2005]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

it's a reasonable assumption that the number who have not been caught, and who have successfully crossed the border, has also risen.

 

Why is this a "reasonable assumption"? We have sent thousands of troops to the border. And the administration has been focused on border security.

 

I can easily say that it is a reasonable assumption that we are apprehending all illegals. Except for these folks of course...

 

 

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Credo said:

It is a different demographic crossing the border than in years past.   Mexican's crossing the border, by and large were looking for work and did not want to get caught or stopped.   Now, many of those crossing are from Central America and applying for asylum.   They do want to get caught/stopped.   They cannot make an asylum claim without presenting themselves to the Border Patrol.    They also have a time limit on how long after an illegal entry they can make a claim.   

 

 

Good point. That should be taken into consideration and is likely the main reason for the increase in the detection of border crossings. However, the main concern is the number of undetected border crossings, and that number is not known.

 

It is reasonable to assume that anyone who thinks he/she is unlikely to meet the immigration requirements, will attempt to cross the border secretly, undetected. Many of these people will have a criminal background, or criminal intentions. The purpose of the wall is to help stop this.

 

If there are cheaper, and/or more effective ways of doing this, then these alternative ways should be considered. The most effective way would likely be a wall in conjunction with the other alternatives, but that would be even more expensive. This is a common problem. We often settle for a half-baked solution because the complete solution is too expensive.

[Credo]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Good point. That should be taken into consideration and is likely the main reason for the increase in the detection of border crossings. However, the main concern is the number of undetected border crossings, and that number is not known.

 

It is reasonable to assume that anyone who thinks he/she is unlikely to meet the immigration requirements, will attempt to cross the border secretly, undetected. Many of these people will have a criminal background, or criminal intentions. The purpose of the wall is to help stop this.

 

If there are cheaper, and/or more effective ways of doing this, then these alternative ways should be considered. The most effective way would likely be a wall in conjunction with the other alternatives, but that would be even more expensive. This is a common problem. We often settle for a half-baked solution because the complete solution is too expensive.

Watching people climb over the border walls shows just how ineffective it is.   It does not stop people.   There are also pictures of those tunneling under the wall.   

 

Here's a question:  Why do these people go over the wall?   Why don't they just go into the desert and cross where there isn't a wall?   I suspect that anyone who has been in those vast stretches of desert know, that it is a rough area to cross.   

 

The University of Arizona has developed fiber optic cables which can be buried along the border that are sensitive enough to tell if is a person or a dog and if they are walking or running.   

 

The other factor that people don't seem to realize is that there is nothing that border patrol can do until someone actually crosses the border.   Once they have crossed it, they are arrested.   They cannot be automatically be deported.

 

Whether it is open border or a wall, it has to be guarded.   It's much cheaper to use modern technology to assist and forego the wall.   Even someone crawling over the wall can't be stopped.  It's not until they drop down that they can be arrested.   

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

Watching people climb over the border walls shows just how ineffective it is.   It does not stop people.   There are also pictures of those tunneling under the wall.   

 

Here's a question:  Why do these people go over the wall?   Why don't they just go into the desert and cross where there isn't a wall?   I suspect that anyone who has been in those vast stretches of desert know, that it is a rough area to cross.   

 

The University of Arizona has developed fiber optic cables which can be buried along the border that are sensitive enough to tell if is a person or a dog and if they are walking or running.   

 

The other factor that people don't seem to realize is that there is nothing that border patrol can do until someone actually crosses the border.   Once they have crossed it, they are arrested.   They cannot be automatically be deported.

 

Whether it is open border or a wall, it has to be guarded.   It's much cheaper to use modern technology to assist and forego the wall.   Even someone crawling over the wall can't be stopped.  It's not until they drop down that they can be arrested.   

I don't have any information on the size of the wall that was climbed over, as shown in the video. If the Trump-proposed wall  would be easily climbable, then that might indicate such a wall would be a waste of money.
As I've mentioned before, half-baked solutions are not effective.

 

The real problem that has to be addressed, or should be addressed for the world to have a peaceful and prosperous future, is the corruption, incompetence and religious fanaticism, which has led to the poverty and desperation of those who believe that emigrating illegally to the USA, or Australia and Europe, is their best option.

 

Raising the living standards in South America, and other undeveloped countries around the world, is a much bigger and more expensive project than building a wall between the US and Mexico.

[Credo]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I don't have any information on the size of the wall that was climbed over, as shown in the video. If the Trump-proposed wall  would be easily climbable, then that might indicate such a wall would be a waste of money.
As I've mentioned before, half-baked solutions are not effective.

 

The real problem that has to be addressed, or should be addressed for the world to have a peaceful and prosperous future, is the corruption, incompetence and religious fanaticism, which has led to the poverty and desperation of those who believe that emigrating illegally to the USA, or Australia and Europe, is their best option.

 

Raising the living standards in South America, and other undeveloped countries around the world, is a much bigger and more expensive project than building a wall between the US and Mexico.

There is no such thing as an unclimbable wall.   If the wall is slatted steel, it can be climbed.   If it is solid, then border patrol cannot see what is on the other side.   And there are much cheaper and just as effective means of monitoring the border.   

 

The assumption that raising the living standard will stop people is somewhat of a myth.   Those fleeing persecution are more interested in safety than in wages, although there is a close relationship between the two.   Working toward reducing violence (especially gang violence) and corruption would be a start and I doubt it would cost more than the $25 - $30 billion that a wall will cost.   

 

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, Credo said:

There is no such thing as an unclimbable wall. 

 

Of course there isn't. The issue is the ease with which a wall can be climbed. The more difficult it is, the fewer the people who will try.

 

The assumption that raising the living standard will stop people is somewhat of a myth.

 

 

It's not an either/or situation. There are many different reasons why people attempt to illegally enter another country. However, poverty and low living standards in their home country is a major reason. That's no myth. 

 

Working toward reducing violence (especially gang violence) and corruption would be a start and I doubt it would cost more than the $25 - $30 billion that a wall will cost.  

 

If the US were to get the full co-operation of the governments in those countries, such as Venezuela, then $25-$30 billion would be a good start. But we know that full co-operation is not realistic, and currently in Venezuela there is no co-operation at all taking place.

 

In a sense, the wall would be a symbol of the failure of co-operation between governments. Co-operation and agreement on causes and issue to be addressed would obviously be preferable to building a wall, but such co-operation has failed miserably and does not seem a realistic option. The proposal to build a wall is the result. However, I suspect the wall project will never get off the ground because of the USA's national debt, the increasing trade deficit, and the opposition from the Democrats.

[Cryingdick]

Nothing to worry about. We can just screen every girl over the age of ten for pregnancy and then release them back to the custody of their "parents" to wait for the outcome of their immigration case.

 

On the bright side if they are pregnant by virtue of jus soli we have another productive citizen.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Cryingdick

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

Nothing to worry about. We can just screen every girl over the age of ten for pregnancy and then release them back to the custody of their "parents" to wait for the outcome of their immigration case.

 

On the bright side if they are pregnant by virtue of jus soli we have another productive citizen.

To release a child back to its parents the state first has to remove the child from its parents.

 

Your eagerness to parade your inhumanity is noted.

[Scott]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course there isn't. The issue is the ease with which a wall can be climbed. The more difficult it is, the fewer the people who will try.

 

 

 

 

It's not an either/or situation. There are many different reasons why people attempt to illegally enter another country. However, poverty and low living standards in their home country is a major reason. That's no myth. 

 

 

 

 

If the US were to get the full co-operation of the governments in those countries, such as Venezuela, then $25-$30 billion would be a good start. But we know that full co-operation is not realistic, and currently in Venezuela there is no co-operation at all taking place.

 

In a sense, the wall would be a symbol of the failure of co-operation between governments. Co-operation and agreement on causes and issue to be addressed would obviously be preferable to building a wall, but such co-operation has failed miserably and does not seem a realistic option. The proposal to build a wall is the result. However, I suspect the wall project will never get off the ground because of the USA's national debt, the increasing trade deficit, and the opposition from the Democrats.

Venezuela?   Really, we have people from Venezuela trying to cross from Mexico?

You might want to check your geography.  

 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course there isn't. The issue is the ease with which a wall can be climbed. The more difficult it is, the fewer the people who will try.

 

 

 

 

It's not an either/or situation. There are many different reasons why people attempt to illegally enter another country. However, poverty and low living standards in their home country is a major reason. That's no myth. 

 

 

 

 

If the US were to get the full co-operation of the governments in those countries, such as Venezuela, then $25-$30 billion would be a good start. But we know that full co-operation is not realistic, and currently in Venezuela there is no co-operation at all taking place.

 

In a sense, the wall would be a symbol of the failure of co-operation between governments. Co-operation and agreement on causes and issue to be addressed would obviously be preferable to building a wall, but such co-operation has failed miserably and does not seem a realistic option. The proposal to build a wall is the result. However, I suspect the wall project will never get off the ground because of the USA's national debt, the increasing trade deficit, and the opposition from the Democrats.

US had full cooperation of those countries, but drastically cut the budget. Hence I expect immigration on the southern border to increase again. Solving issues at the source is easier, better and cheaper, but short sighted politics are preventing this.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Venezuela?   Really, we have people from Venezuela trying to cross from Mexico?

You might want to check your geography.  

 

I didn't write that, but I might have implied it. I made the reference to Venezuela as an example of the lack of co-operation between governments which results in a refugee crisis. As I understand, most of the Venezuelan refugees who arrive in the US are fairly wealthy and can afford to buy air tickets to Miami or Florida. Those with no money probably go to Colombia or Peru. Mexico would obviously be too far and too difficult to get to, but some might make it there if they believe a border with no wall would be easy to cross.
 

[55Jay]

On 3/7/2019 at 8:09 AM, mtls2005 said:

 

Why is this a "reasonable assumption"? We have sent thousands of troops to the border. And the administration has been focused on border security.

 

I can easily say that it is a reasonable assumption that we are apprehending all illegals. Except for these folks of course...

 

 

They were caught.  Text book example of a wall/fence as part of an integrated physical security system.