The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[Hersh]

18 hours ago, Larry said:

 

"Good Samaritans"?  Or "accessories in an illegal act"?  

 

Did you actually read the article cause your analogy was terrible.

[visionary]

 

[PeterMP]

@twa

 

There is no evidence that more dangerous people are more iikely to try to come over the southern border where there is no screening than other borders.  In fact, if we use being on the terrorist as a metric of dangerous people we see the exact opposite.

 

Maybe you over estimate how well our screening does, maybe you over estimate how easy it is to get into Mexico and then come over the border somewhere there isn't screening, maybe you don't care about facts and evidence because you have an anti-Hispanic bias.

 

I don't know.

 

Your same logic would have applied in the months before 9/11.  There was a border where people could come through with screening and there was a border that people could attempt to cross illegally without screening.  You logic was wrong then and there is no evidence that it is not wrong today.

 

And yes, we've increased screening since 9/11, but we've also increased the security at the Mexican border where screening doesn't happen.  The Mexican border has never been more secure.

 

You may not object to greater security elsewhere, but the people you support and vote for are only really pushing more security at one place (the Mexican border).  There's a reason for that, it is not because the evidence suggest that the people that trying to come across the Mexican border unscreened are more dangerous than those coming in other ways.

 

It is because it appeals to voters that are xenophobic.

Edited May 12, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

27 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

You may not object to greater security elsewhere, but the people you support and vote for are only really pushing more security at one place (the Mexican border).  There's a reason for that, it is not because the evidence suggest that the people that trying to come across the Mexican border unscreened are more dangerous than those coming in other ways.

 

It is because it appeals to voters that are xenophobic.

 

What are the numbers at other borders attempting to enter unscreened?

 

Why are you ignoring the elephant in the room?

 

 

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, twa said:

 

What are the numbers at other borders attempting to enter unscreened?

 

Why are you ignoring the elephant in the room?

 

 

 

I have no idea how many people are coming in from Canada, ports, or small airports unscreened, but the people that work in human trafficking say that internationally about 80% of the people being trafficked are crossing at legal entry points.

 

Why don't you tell me?

 

And again, you seem to be assuming the screening is effective.  More people on the terrorist watch list seem to try to come through places where screening happens then places where screening doesn't happen.  They aren't doing that because they think they are going to be caught by the screening.

 

What elephant in the room?

Edited May 12, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

using the terrorist watch list as your metric is rather foolish.

 

most humans trafficked here are actually citizens

 

where do most apprehensions of illegal entry occur?

the southern border

396,579 out of 404,142 nationwide

https://www.statista.com/statistics/328826/us-border-patrol-apprehensions-by-sector/

 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, twa said:

using the terrorist watch list as your metric is rather foolish.

 

most humans trafficked here are actually citizens

 

where do most apprehensions of illegal entry occur?

the southern border

 

And in the same year, 280,000 people presenting for legal entry turned away.  

 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics

 

[twa]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

And in the same year, 280,000 people presenting for legal entry turned away.  

 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics

 

 

so screening works?

 

added

 yet over 10% of southern border apprehensions are repeat offenders in the same year.

Edited May 12, 2019 by twa

[Larry]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

so screening works?

 

So our southern border security works?

[twa]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

So our southern border security works?

 

I think they estimate about a 3 to 1 ratio ,so I guess it depends on your expectations.

[Larry]

Got it.  

 

300,000 people stopped at Point X:  Proof that security is working.  

 

300,000 people stopped at Point Y:  Proof that security has completely failed.  

 

This "reasoning", I'm sure, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your political master has decided to make the latter a campaign issue.  

[Larry]

Now, FWIW?  Looking at the CBP statistics, I really think Trump's fixation on his Ego Wall is preventing him from using a talking point that I think is worth pointing out, and which I bet he could actually use to make himself look good.  

 

It looks to me like, since Trump took office, the apprehensions at the southern border have doubled.  

 

Now, the two easy explanations I can come up with, for this, 

 

1)  Trump is so much more inviting to illegals than Obama was, that twice as many of them are coming now.  

 

2)  Trump's enforcement policies are successfully stopping twice as many as Obama was stopping.  

 

Needless to say, #2 looks a lot more likely, to me.  

 

I could see Trump claiming that he has made border security twice as effective as it used to be, really selling, to the base he's trying to appeal to.  

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, twa said:

using the terrorist watch list as your metric is rather foolish.

 

most humans trafficked here are actually citizens

 

where do most apprehensions of illegal entry occur?

the southern border

396,579 out of 404,142 nationwide

https://www.statista.com/statistics/328826/us-border-patrol-apprehensions-by-sector/

 

Why?  Do you have a better one?  You are the one making claims about people being more serious problems.  If that's the best metric we have for people that are serious problems entering the country, then that's the best evidence we have.  While I agree it isn't perfect and isn't necessarily great, you've posted 0 evidence to support your claim.   And while the it isn't necessarily great, the best evidence that I know of appears to contradict your claim.

 

So again, I'll ask, do you have any actual evidence to support your claim (that the people in the country illegally through the southern border pose some greater danger or risk than people in the country illegally through other methods)?

 

Again, you've made the claim about people that are serious problems.  If you have anything to support that claim, please, post it.

 

Your stat is true, but it is also misleading.  That's where the most people trying to come into the country illegally are caught,  but that's not how most of the people in the country illegally come in.

 

 

 

Given the numbers of people that are in the country illegally that did not enter through the southern border, the focus on the southern border makes no sense unless there is something especially dangerous with those people.  Which is why you made the claim that those people are especially dangerous.

 

Which brings me back to the original point, do you have any evidence that people in the country illegally via the southern border are more problematic than people in the country coming in other ways that are here legally?

 

And as I've already stated, the answer to that question is no.  You are making a claim for a policy that if implemented is going to cost huge amounts of money, but you don't actually have any evidence to support your claim.

'

So we can go around in a circle again. 

 

Or you can just admit that the Republican party is focused on the southern border even though that isn't  how most of the people that got into the country here illegally came into the country and there is no real evidence that of the people that are here illegally through the southern border are more dangerous than people that came in other ways.

 

And then the most likely explanation for the Republican focus on the Southern border is xenophobia.

Edited May 12, 2019 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

I'll also again point out, if you are actually serious about illegal immigration, the key would be to go after the jobs.  If jobs dry up, then illegal immigration will go down.

 

Of course, the Republicans never take that route.  Because they don't really care about illegal immigration, and they really care about xenophobia.

[twa]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Why?  Do you have a better one?  You are the one making claims about people being more serious problems.  If that's the best metric we have for people that are serious problems entering the country, then that's the best evidence we have.

 

Again, you've made the claim about people that are serious problems.  If you have anything to support that claim, please, post it.

 

Your stat is true, but it is also misleading.  That's where the most people trying to come into the country illegally are caught,  but that's not how most of the people in the country illegally come in.

 

Which brings me back to the original point, do you have any evidence that people in the country illegally via the southern border are more problematic than people in the country coming in other ways that are here legally?

 

 

Ask any person in security if those attempting to evade screening are higher risk or not. 

 

It IS where most attempt to enter w/o screening

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I'll also again point out, if you are actually serious about illegal immigration, the key would be to go after the jobs.  If jobs dry up, then illegal immigration will go down.

 

Of course, the Republicans never take that route.  Because they don't really care about illegal immigration, and they really care about xenophobia.

 

I'm fine with going after jobs, of course which party supports sanctuary policies?

 

I'm fine with restricting HUD housing for illegals

 

I'm fine with restricting federal benefits

 

 

[PeterMP]

40 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Ask any person in security if those attempting to evade screening are higher risk or not. 

 

It IS where most attempt to enter w/o screening

 

What people say doesn't interest me.  Evidence interest me.  Again, your same logic would have applied in the months before 9/11.  And it was wrong then.   We screened people coming in through airports then.  People were coming in through the southern border unscreened then.  Clearly, the people that came through the screening were more dangerous.

 

There's no evidence that it isn't wrong now.

And again, I'll point out illegal weapons and drugs entering this country are in most cases are not coming in over the southern border.  There's no reason to believe that the mechanisms that they are being brought in also can't bring in dangerous people.

 

You have a belief that you want to dictate policy, but you have zero evidence to support your belief.

 

(I just want to point out that coming from you this argument is especially funny because if I went into the climate change thread and posted something about an actual scientific survey done of climate scientists saying the largely support a carbon tax to fight climate change, you'd still not support it.  Yet here, you don't even have a survey, and you expect other people to find your appeal to experts (which is a logical fallacy) very convincing.

 

Your own bias is drastically altering what you consider to be good evidence between the two topics.)

Edited May 12, 2019 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

18 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Ask any person in security if those attempting to evade screening are higher risk or not. 

 

It IS where most attempt to enter w/o screening

 

I'm fine with going after jobs, of course which party supports sanctuary policies?

 

I'm fine with restricting HUD housing for illegals

 

I'm fine with restricting federal benefits

 

 

 

When trump offered to send the illegals to sanctuary cities instead of tent cities the left cried fowl...

[Larry]

23 minutes ago, twa said:

I'm fine with going after jobs, of course which party supports sanctuary policies?

 

He said, trying to deflect the topic to something else.  

 

 

24 minutes ago, twa said:

I'm fine with restricting HUD housing for illegals

 

You're fine with blocking HUD housing for US citizen children.  Because your political master came up with the notion.  

[PeterMP]

39 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Ask any person in security if those attempting to evade screening are higher risk or not. 

 

It IS where most attempt to enter w/o screening

 

I'm fine with going after jobs, of course which party supports sanctuary policies?

 

I'm fine with restricting HUD housing for illegals

 

I'm fine with restricting federal benefits

 

 

 

You can go after the jobs in sanctuary cities, and I'll point out that Obama did go after jobs.

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamas-mixed-legacy-immigration

 

"The Obama administration has not been more lenient on employers than previous administrations, either, issuing 15.5 times as many fines against employers and 8.3 times as many arrests for immigration-law violations as did George W. Bush by the end of 2014. President Obama’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has also been encouraging businesses to sign up for E-Verify — an expensive government program that is supposed to weed unlawful immigrants out of the workforce. Moreover, the Obama administration has expanded detention in jail-like conditions for many of the roughly 231,000 children asylum seekers since 2010."

 

Even the raids of employeers done under Trump were the result of investigations that started under Obama.

 

But lets say the Democrats don't care at all about border policy.  At least the policy wouldn't be motivated by xenophobia.

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

When trump offered to send the illegals to sanctuary cities instead of tent cities the left cried fowl...

 

?

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/04/seattles-mayor-had-the-perfect-response-to-trumps-threat-to-send-immigrants-to-sanctuary-cities/

 

"So if this president wants to send immigrants and refugees to Seattle and other welcoming cities, let me be clear: We will do what we have always done, and we will be stronger for it. And it will only strengthen our commitment to fighting for the dignity of every person. We will not allow any administration to use the power of America to destroy the promise of America."

Edited May 12, 2019 by PeterMP

[TradeTheBeal!]

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

When trump offered to send the illegals to sanctuary cities instead of tent cities reasonable people cried foul...

 

Fixed.

[Larry]

I know that it seems an article of faith that Republicans love to arrest illegal workers, and ignore employers, and that Dems do the opposite.  

 

But it seems to be just that - an article of faith.  I'm at least not aware of any real support for it.  (Wish I could find some.)

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

I know that it seems an article of faith that Republicans love to arrest illegal workers, and ignore employers, and that Dems do the opposite.  

 

But it seems to be just that - an article of faith.  I'm at least not aware of any real support for it.  (Wish I could find some.)

 

I'm not sure if you can say Democrats vs. Republicans in general, but Obama absolutely did go after employers more than employees more than George W. Bush as outlined in the CATO link I posted.

[Larry]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not sure if you can say Democrats vs. Republicans in general, but Obama absolutely did go after employers more than employees more than George W. Bush as outlined in the CATO link I posted.

 

Yeah, I did find a Politifact article from 2013 that made that point about Obama vs W.  

 

But for example, didn't see anything that indicates that Trump eased off on employer enforcement.  

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah, I did find a Politifact article from 2013 that made that point about Obama vs W.  

 

But for example, didn't see anything that indicates that Trump eased off on employer enforcement.  

 

Trump appears to very much on the employee side.  He's talked a big game about employers, but seems to have done very little.  They are entering more places and taking away the employees, which at some level does discourage future hiring of illegals, but they don't really seem to be going after the employers.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/11/donald-trump-targeted-more-worksites-undocumented-immigrants-immigration-and-customs-enforcement/2263656002/

 

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was ordered to quadruple worksite enforcement this year, and it did just that. In fiscal year 2018, which ended Sept. 30, ICE set 10-year highs for the number of worksite audits conducted (5,981) and criminal charges filed (779).

 

ICE leadership claimed its crackdown is focused on employers and employees equally as part of a balanced approach to worksite enforcement, but the data show that the majority of arrests in 2018 were of workers.

 

The 113 members of management charged with criminal violations in 2018 increased 82 percent from the previous year, but the 666 workers charged with criminal violations increased by 812 percent. The number of "administrative arrests" – those for basic immigration violations that are predominantly used against workers – spiked from 172 in 2017 to 1,525 in 2018. The 121 federal indictments and convictions of managers in 2018 represented a 10-year low for the agency"

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by PeterMP

[Cooked Crack]

Neilsen and pals: Hey, we didn't go full scumbag!