What constitutes a crisis?
We frequently hear Democrats say that there is no crisis on the border. They cite the fact the illegal crossings are down. October 1 through the third week of November, illegal immigrants from Honduras, Guatemala, land El Salvador numbered 25,000 including 15 Syrians. "In FY18, a total of 396,579 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry on our Southwest Border."
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
What is the definition of a crisis? I have also noticed that the major network news is now showing the number of families interdicted crossing rather than number of individuals.
Why do you feel illegal immigration is or is not a crisis?Because DHS reports 90% of illegal immigrants are caught after illegally crossing the border. Does this sound like a "crisis "to you?
I can only find data from DHS that reports 54% are caught. But even if you are right, the cost per person to interdict and deport is $10,854. https://cis.org/Report/Deportation-vs-C … rants-Stay
It is more expensive now, but at that rate the cost would be about 4.3 billion dollars. That is just illegal aliens from Central America.
How much money would have to be spent on illegal immigration to be a crisis?4.3 billion? And the request for funds to put a wall up is 5 billion? A one time outlay of 5 billion to save 4.3 billion per year. Seems like a no brainer. Could explain the left's inability to consider the matter. Money being no object to that side of politics.
Yes, it would seem that way. But I am hoping someone will throw out a tidbit of fact changing my mind that it is a no-brainer. So much howling about it all, and I cannot figure out why.?
There is much howling about it because it originated with Donald Trump. Just a few years ago the howlers were calling for the same thing, and we already have quite a bit of wall of one kind or another up, but now? Not when it comes from Trump. That is sufficient to deny anything and everything, regardless of value.
OK. I guess that answers the reasoning of some people. Regardless of value? Thanks for the input.
Value? You mean like how valuable it is to curtail all those American businesses located in Mexico? Oh wait. You must mean the value of Americans losing their jobs in Mexico because Republican since 2000 have yet to come up with a jobs creation program?
Don't talk about a wall's value until you get your priorities straight.I repeated the word value because it is subjective and to say anything of value would be rejected sounds inane. My priorities I feel are straight, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
It's simple. Trump lost a business deal with Mexico. So Mr. Childish Spiteful boy is getting even by building a wall he hopes will cut off all trade with Mexico until they agree to HIS business terms.
Am I wrong or did the President reportedly come to a deal with Canada and Mexico over trade? It needs to be agreed to by Congress, but both Canada's and Mexico's leaders were smiling on the major networks.
Mr. Trump has probably lost many private business deals given his time in real estate - only an assumption.
What did border states do with the $22 billion Republicans handed them in 2018 for border protection? Why should WE have to keep handing these border states money for border protection when they refuse to obey the law and use E-Verify and Republicans refuse to fine businesses who break that law?
Did you bother to find out what the cost of orphaning immigrant children a week is? It's $20 million. Not to mention the lame excuses for the deaths of 3 of those immigrant kids and who knows how many more?
How did Melania Knavs Trump's parents and sister get to the head of the immigration line when her Daddy is a Slovenian Putin Party supporter? No national security risk in that?
And, who at ICE is Trump paying to get their citizenship documents approve in less than 2 years when others wait up to 11 years?One of the children was ill before reaching the border. There are a lot of folks that are not in the best of shape coming to the border. Blaming there deaths on the United States seems a stretch. But you are entitled to your opinion.
I think that Melania Trump's parents probably availed themselves of the chain migration law. Do you wish an end to chain migration? Trump does too he says.
I would suggest that having the President's father-in-law living in Slovenia presents many other security problems - issues of nuisance blackmail.
Of course, not to mention the obvious - they are "legal" permanent residents. And to state more of the obvious, we don't have thousands of Slovenians crossing the border.
You seem to be very emotional about this, as in, all Republicans are crooks and couldn't possibly have a sound brain between them. You are entitled to your opinion. I wouldn't know about all of that.
Your "90%"statement is misleading, if not inaccurate. If they are caught, they are also released; once released, it is difficult to bring them back into the court system. Rather, most illegal aliens remain in the United States.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st … h-release/My Bad, I meant to say the odds of their being caught was 90%. Wall maintenance is very expensive so a one-time cost to build the wall doesn't count almost endless maintenance as long as the wall is there. Eventually the maintenance cost will exceed the price to construct it.
Eventually maintenance costs exceed the cost of many assets. I doubt maintenance costs will exceed 4.3 billion dollars in mine or my children's lifetimes. But if the value of the dollar continues to drop because of deficit financing, you may be right?
Are you counting the court costs from the Imminent Domain lawsuits or the cost of paying the ranchers for their land eventually? You do know some ranchers will also have their cattle isolated from the river because of the wall.
These are simply a couple of lawsuits will hold up the construction for years. 4.3 billion is just a down payment if you look at the total picture.My understanding is the $5.6 (or 7?) billion is just to get the wall started. Just saw this was already brought up by Don W. but a couple extra links don't hurt I guess.
The Cost of the Border Wall Keeps Climbing and It’s Becoming Less of a Wall
https://www.cato.org/blog/cost-border-w … -less-wall
Exclusive - Trump border 'wall' to cost $21.6 billion, take 3.5 years to build: internal report
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN15O2ZN
Right now in 2019 there are over 1.6 MILLION miles of pipeline, thanks to the polluter fossil fuel states holding Americans hostage to their antiquated energy policies.
Not all of that 1.6 MILLION miles of pipeline has been inspected annually, much less maintained. And a wall is more important to people living in TN? AL? KY? KS? IA? OK?
What would they do if they had a REAL crisis like 9/11? Not to worry Terrorists won't take the trouble to try to find these hick states on a map.What does pipeline have to do with all of this? If we stop doing anything because of other unfunded issues, we will get nothing done. There are always "priorities not funded". Priority is in the eye of the beholder. It is through process that we come to what is a priority.
You have determined that the immigration crisis is not the same as 9/11. I would agree. I think President Trump could probably deal with a "real crisis" quite adequately. But you are entitled to your opinion. Hard to tell?
You really should have left out the part about "hick states". That language doesn't fool anybody. Have a nice day.
Maybe in your state. Not mine. Why is it the lawlessness of Republican states only applies to immigrant and not gun control?
The number of white men who have committed mass murders since Charles Whitman picked off pedestrians from a Dallas tower in 1974 IS the crisis.
Sorry but get your priorities in order. Human life first. Then the unborn and trigger happy gun nuts.I must have struck a nerve.
"Unfortunately, almost every public official not named Jeff Sessions guards against disclosure of illegal-immigrant crime data more tenaciously than disclosure of nuclear launch codes. But in 2011, GAO conducted a study on criminal aliens incarcerated in state jails and prisons. According to GAO, in FY 2009 295,959 SCAAP criminal aliens, of whom approximately 227,600 are illegal aliens, were incarcerated in state jails and prisons. This is a 40 percent and 25 percent increase, respectively, in criminal-alien incarcerations in state jails and prisons since FY 2003."
This is reading you should do. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/c … migration/
In 2010, the U.S. Border Patrol reported 212,202 illegal aliens were caught in the Tucson sector alone.
Here are the numbers of crimes !per day! committed by illegal aliens in just a few crime categories, based on those GAO numbers and the 90% figure for SCAAP persons over four years. The GAO would not be considered by most a left-wing department.
Kidnappings: 9
Murders: 15
Sex offenses: 43
Burglaries: 71
Assaults: 131
Look at the FBI numbers also.
Read more:
https://www.americanthinker.com/article … ns_do.html
As far as murder rates. This is from the GAO in 2011. "Homicide 25,064 "
The criminal alien rate has increased each year up to 2018. You really do need to read the GAO report - it might change your language a bit when referring to the problem. https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf
I abhor murders by any race. I can assure you that trigger happy white gun nuts don't come close to these numbers.
How can unborn trigger happy gun nuts kill anybody?"American Thinker"
The first page article listing tells me all I need to know about this site, GR!But what about the data Randy, is the data wrong?
GA
Those figures only stand to reason. If a large portion of the illegal population are escaping lawless, crime ridden areas,some behavior patterns within those areas are bound to follow. Many anti social (by our standards) habits will be embedded in at least the first generation of those who flee. Possibly a greater percentage will be displayed by the second generation, for various reasons; attributed to a confusion of how to display a cultural heritage and being taken advantage of by those who will seek to gain from that confusion.
I think this is what I find most dangerous about the dogma within the Democrat party. 'Listen to me' they say. 'Pay no attention to statistics' they chant. If you don't follow their blind lead they scream racist, xenophobe and white nationalist.
Facts don't lie. What we do with the facts is important. If we ignore facts we create another problem, entirely.
Randy, I don't buy the figures from DHS. The author of Illegal Entries, a former border security agent, stated in his book that despite figures at that time stating a 50% catch rate, that agents actually in the field "know better", and stated that the rate was more like 1 in 10 being caught.
Even with it given that security has improved SOME, since then, and that there're less folks trying to get in at the moment, it's a stretch (at best) for DHS to claim 80-90% catch rate.There is a far more serious crisis looming. Trump's butt kissing of Putin has led to Trump threatening to pull the US out of NATO.
Since Krushchev, Russia has hated NATO. Putin has stated many times that without NATO protecting western European countries, Russia would become its ruler.
See the potential for WW3 yet? If Trump carries out this threat, that leaves our western European allies to go to war to protect their countries from Putin's takeover and occupation. And if that happens, you know Canada will take their side and most likely other countries who depend on European trade.
Time to force Trump to stand down... but but but..NO Collusion with Putin right? Just doing everything Putin asks.
Part of the reason it is a border crisis is that illegal immigration has been allowed to go on for so long. Also, it is a border crises because real-time issues are observed emotively, resulting in a shallow study of issues that need to be addressed on deep levels.
Illegal immigrants sidestep the disease/medical screenings: https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/index.html
Illegal immigrant taxation: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/20-Immi … xation.pdf
Various forms of aid for illegal immigrants: https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011 … t-welfare/
State-by-state the crisis within the overburdened public defender community is added to by illegal immigrants: https://www.fairus.org/legislation/stat … on-lawyersHi GoldenRod LM. I haven't seen you in this forum before, so welcome.
Put into historical perspective using nationwide figures from 1925 - 2017 (the most recent year nationwide figures are available as far as I can see), the number of apprehensions is still much lower than it has been for the majority of years since 1971. It's also lower than the period between 1949 and 1954 before that.
A word of caution though. The DHS have moved away from using the absolute number of apprehensions as a proxy of illegal immigration between ports of entry(2). They now use "new estimation strategies to better model unknown flows"(3).
Apprehensions are now incorporated into a rate which includes attempted unlawful entries in addition to apprehensions. According the DHS this metric describes ". . . the difficulty of illegally crossing the border successfully"(4). So higher is better. The DHS reports that:
"Since FY 2003, the model-based apprehension rate has climbed from less than 35 percent to nearly 65 percent in FY 2016. "(5).
Another model used for this metric also indicates an upward trend. So based on an absolute total, apprehensions are at historic lows, and according to the new apprehensions rate, it's harder to cross the border illegally without being apprehended than it has been at any time since 2003.
(1) https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files … FY2017.pdf
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.9)
(3) ibid (p.7)
(4) ibid (p.9)
(5) ibid (p.13)There's absolutely been progress in the catch rate, but it needs to be far better.
More physical barriers would deter even more from attempting to cross illegally."More physical barriers would deter even more from attempting to cross illegally."
I don't think assumptions are good enough when we're talking about billions of dollars. We need to know exactly what benefit additional barriers are projected to have. Where is the quantitative analysis that indicates that?
And I'm not alone in wanting that. In 2017 the Government Accountability Office called for that too in a report titled: "Additional Actions Needed to Better Assess Fencing's Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps"
That report recommended that the CBP: ". . . develop metrics to assess the contributions of pedestrian and vehicle fencing to border security along the southwest border and develop guidance for its process for identifying, funding, and deploying TI [Tactical Infrastructure] assets for border security operations"(1)
Seems perfectly sensible to me.
Where is that analysis?
If it has been done, it should be published as part of making the case (or ruling out the case) for additional barriers. If it hasn't, then requesting significant public resources with no factual information demonstrating the benefit is less than sensible.
(1) https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682838.pdfNo need to get caught up in paralysis of analysis. There are border patrol agents on both sides of this issue, some saying more walls/fencing will absolutely help, and others saying they're not so sure, and the opinions differ to some degree based on what section they're patrolling.
"Developing metrics.....". Really? After 30 years of mostly increasing illegal border crossings there's talk about study?? Let additional barriers do that work for us. Use that 5 billion (not all that substantial in light of current federal budgets) be used for additional barriers, with the requirement that, through both government and independent review of the results, a final analysis is made as to the effectiveness of those additional resources being put in place, without which no further funds will be committed for additional barriers.
That's reasonable.That is very reasonable. This adds a lot to the conversation.
Asking for analysis that shows what impact the proposed barriers will actually have on illegal flows is not "analysis paralysis", it's common sense. Who wouldn't want to know exactly what they're getting for $18 billion (at a conservative estimate)?
It's also about accountability. That's why the Government Accountability Office (the clue is in the name) has recommended that the Trump administration provide metrics to indicate the contribution barriers make to border security(1).
Where are those metrics?
And this is a bit more than not having "all his ducks in a row". This is not a request on GoFundMe. This is a request by the federal government to appropriate billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. As a minimum, the following information should be published:
What % reduction in illegal crossings is the wall projected to achieve? Over what period of time? What is that as a dollar amount? How likely is it that the cost will be more than the estimated $18 billion? What would that do to any projected benefits and return on investment? What would be the projected impact of not having the wall? Etc.
Public policy should not be based on "anecdotes" and speculation. It should be based on facts. If the wall is, in fact, beneficial then it should be easy to demonstrate that on paper. A reluctance to do that is suggestive of the possibility that the benefit is not as great as some people (including Trump) are suggesting.
(1) https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682838.pdf(1)"Asking for analysis that shows what impact the proposed barriers will actually have on illegal flows is not "analysis paralysis", it's common sense. Who wouldn't want to know exactly what they're getting for $18 billion (at a conservative estimate)?
It's also about accountability. That's why the Government Accountability Office (the clue is in the name) has recommended that the Trump administration provide metrics to indicate the contribution barriers make to border security(1)."
Just going to reiterate a few things I've already stated, with some rephrasing. Regards the full 18 billion, sure, I'd like to have an assessment of some kind, and for the FULL 18 billion, I want an assessment - but I also want action. And I'm willing to see what DHS actually does with 5 billion of Trump's desired 18 billion so we can determine then how much we've benefited from additional barriers; nothing unreasonable there. If the additional barriers DON'T bring us results that are deserving of even the 5 billion, then we don't do anymore of that, and we can go back to discussing what will work better, though I'm not optimistic that such a discussion, one mostly avoided for 30 years, would actually take place.
As I see it,the "anecdotes" provided by agents on the line are sufficient on which to base a realistic experiment using 5 billion for additional barriers, barriers of the type that are used in places on the border already, before committing more. Yes, Trump "should" provide that paper information, but I'll gladly see 5 billion given to DHS now.
There is NO crisis at the southern border. If there was such an extremity, why when the Republicans had full control of the House and Senate last year did they not build that wall? Sorry but we've given these border states $22 billion for border protection in 2018. More than Trump is now demanding.
And enough is enough. Every year for 20 years now, these border states have gotten tens of billions to protect their borders. Where is all that money?
And if border protection is such a crisis, why haven't Republicans EVER fined businesses who hire undocumented workers and refuse to abide by the Clinton law and use E-Verify to check the status of immigrants?
Sorry but donor states have had enough of moocher states holding out their hands for our hard earned tax dollars."There is NO crisis at the southern border. If there was such an extremity, why when the Republicans had full control of the House and Senate last year did they not build that wall?"
They needed more that a majority in the Senate - 60 votes would have been needed.
There is an error up there. The cost is for all illegal aliens in 2018. My error.
No. Yes it would be a cost. "The government estimates it will cost $21 million just to resolve those suits. The total cost of settling all the suits that would result from a contiguous border? No one knows." https://www.metro.us/news/the-big-stori … order-wall
Most of the land on the border in New Mexico and Arizona is government land. No purchase is necessary.
The Justice Department employees are full time paid workers. I imagine it is like having a team of lawyers on retainer.
Trying to determine cost in today's litigious society is very difficult, so you have a point. But I am not certain that should hold folks back from supporting a wall - if so we probably will not be able to accomplish anything in the future if a large number of people are opposed. That in itself is a problem. Sometimes the opposition has very little to support its position.
As far as water goes, most of that area is low-lying. I live about 100 miles north of the border and am familiar with the border area in Arizona. I would imagine drilling wells or building some conveyance would work just fine, although on that point, I can't say.
Many of the ranchers incur danger, dumping, and liability from all of the illegal traffic on a daily basis.Well stated, GoldenRod. My take is that if border patrol agents need a wall in certain parts of the border, then it may very well be that they should have what they need. My understanding is that barriers free them up to concentrate their efforts where they are needed most. The cost of supporting illegal immigrants, legally and otherwise, outweighs the expense for the upkeep of barriers. Mostly, it is the coyotes who are dangerous people. Nevertheless, the recent caravan was and is a crises, and the constant bleed of migrants coming into the United States constitutes a grave concern, if not a crisis. Even Democrats know this because they have said so repeatedly.
In fact, Obama was referred to by Immigration as the Deporter-In-Chief, having deported more immigrants than all the presidents of the United States combined in all of U.S. history. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas- … d=41715661
My point is that the Democrats don't want to give the President a win. But in this case, they need to at least compromise. If they are that concerned about "immoral borders" (which actually, they are not) then they could take Trump up on his willingness to work with DACA. In that sense, it could be a win for everyone.Have you forgotten Trump saying he would sign a bill if they would pass a bipartisan agreement, which both Houses did. It gave Trump 25 billion for maintenance and wall construction and included DACA legislation. After getting what he asked for, he then changed his mind and wouldn't sign it. How can anyone deal with such a liar?
My understanding is that the vote was 54-45 in favor, but that eight Republicans and three Democrats voted against the bill. 60 votes were needed, so it was another failure by Congress.
I read the same about the vote numbers. If Trump had supported the bill rather than opposed it, more Republicans would have voted in favor.
No Republican Senator in a state with strong Trump support will oppose him and risk his wrath, a blizzard of insulting Tweets and opposition from Trump during the next election.Trump offered 1.8 million Dreamers a path for citizenship. The process would have taken up to 12 years. That wasn't good enough for some members of Congress. Trump would have signed the bill for that amount.
That would have been a MASSIVE gain for the left - it's what they've wanted for years!
Right. He was trying to get wall funding and work with DACA. Now he's asking for much less money. He keeps inviting Dems to the table, but they won't budge. It's no wonder the next caravan is coming. They're protected by the Democrats.
The process was not going to take 12 years. President Obama outlined it clearly in 2015. Republicans voted it down as they did everything else they know will affect them using cheap labor and not having to hire Americans at American wages.
Republicans want cheap labor, don't want to hire folks at American wages, and they support a wall? Is that what you are saying?
So basically, they love a lawbreaker in the WH? His base is not the entire 325 million Americans who live in this country.
We know who these mouthpieces are: The Freedom Caucus boys like Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Raul Labrador, Ron DeSantis and Mick Mulvaney.
We the people, decide as a country how our tax dollars will be spent. If these hicks think they'll force 13 donor states to support their 37 moocher states, they best think again.
Thanks to the Maggot in the WH and his shutdown, mayors of towns across the US are now having to takeover where the FED left them holding the bag.
How soon will they figure out we don't need the Fed and will stop funding to moocher states?OK. OK. I get it.Whether we have a crisis on the border depends on whether Donald Trump broke some laws, the Freedom Caucus is evil, 37 states are moochers, there is the the larva of a fly (order Diptera) in the White House (many garbage cans in the U.S. have them), and the Fed is diabolical. OK. OK. I get it. Hope this helped you vent some frustration. But I am getting eye strain from all of this stuff.
The vultures on the telephone lines in Arizona have determined that a quarter million plus illegals at the southern border is a crisis - and only God knows how many living in the states - but they have decided to just shake their heads.
But Randy, there is more to the story of why the Pres. Trump wouldn't accept the bill. Your part is right, but you left out the rest of the story.
Now, the question is... should "the rest of the story" let him off the hook of promising to sign it? That would be a partisan anser. One I can't be sure of.
But ... it seems the bill did give him most of what he was asking for. I suppose the 'poison' parts of the bill should be looked at to determine if it was worth the parts he did get.
From up here on the fence post, I would say he was right to not accept the bill, and wrong to say he would before he saw it.
GAI couldn't expect any more than that from the fence post, GA.
I think GA Anderson is indicating that he is not necessarily pro or against the barrier based on his comment. He can see both arguments - but comments like yours devoid of any factual response could push him into the pro wall camp. I think conservatives are hoping that this kind of back and forth will ultimately prove constructive for their side.
GA always rides the fence, Gold. Nothing unusual in his reply this time either. Why should this benefit the Right?
It seemed snide. I guess I was wrong. I am not on the forum that much usually. At least a lot of views come out here.
Hello Goldenrod LM,
You are right, a lot of views do come out in these forums, but what Randy is referring to with his "riding the fence" allusion is that because this forum is mostly All-Trump-All-the-Time, and a middle-ground seldom exists, I don't usually participate on threads that aren't about a policy issue.
There are two sides to every issue, and if you aren't ardently supportive of one or the other -- then you are automatically relegated to "the other."
So, I sit on the fence watching the show. And you are right, I am not pro-wall, which as mentioned, automatically makes me anti-Trump, but, since I don't jump in on Trump-bashing conversations, then I am automatically pro-Trump.
And from my "fence post" position, I don't even have to buy a ticket for the show. ;-)
GAI'm really semi-serious when I accuse you of fence riding, GA. I know you didn't vote for the cretin.
I know you are Randy, and I don't mind owning the label, mainly for the reason I explained to Goldenrod LM.
But it may really be my sixth grade music teacher's fault. She wouldn't let me join the choir, so I have refused to join any choir ever since.
GAAre you sure it wasn't because you couldn't sing worth a damn, GA? Or because you wanted to sit on the choir railing instead of standing with the other singers?
No problem, John! Some of us let our sarcastic side go a bit far for the uninitiated. Don't take it too seriously if we get a jab in here and there. Everyone has a right to their own opinion......even if it's wrong!
Thanks for the explanation. I will understand in the future. It would be so nice if the forum worked more like a debate rather than a political rant. If support for one or the other side were used to persuade - sine the other stuff - so many issues could be resolved. At least I have always thought so. With the number of folks seemingly intransigent, for whatever reasons, perhaps that is impossible.
I think I'll take my position on the telephone wires here in Arizona with the turkey vultures and hope that someday (whatever way) the southern border is secured.
DUH? There already is a wall. It just doesn't have an ego maniac name on it or get revenge for Trump's lost business deal with Mexico.
Low standards, much? How is that "nice" or even true?
I was my attempt at being facetious. I guess it didn't work?
And by the way, this is an example of civil discourse. Thank you savvydating for your contribution.
You are very kind, and I am dreadfully sorry I misunderstood.
Great question you've posted here. Congress remains at a stalemate even now. They left work at 2pm on a Thursday (today) and will not return until Wednesday(?) of next week. Sheesh!
As the President is fond of saying, "We'll see...."
Duh! You must be right, Ewent. I'll save my breath. I must be an egomaniac.
So tell me Goldenrod LM, what do you think of your early ventures into the Politics and Social Issues forum?
You have probably discovered that it is not a debate forum. I have an extra ticket for a fence seat when you feel the need.
GAYou are so right!! Thanks for the ticket offer. I'm just waiting on the telephone wires with my pals the vultures. My buddies up there have osteo in their necks from shaking their heads so much.
In truth, it is all rather exhausting. Hmmm.. not sure this all bodes well for the country, but a positive attitude can extend your life.
... well, sixth grade teachers do have a lot of influence on the psyche.
- savvydatingposted 5 years ago
0It doesn't matter whether the catch rate is 100% as long as Catch and Release remains in effect. As i mentioned before, most illegal immigrants manage to stay in this country, which is why they keep coming over despite the hardships they face to get here.
And as we speak, another caravan is headed to the U.S., right now, from Honduras. Congress needs to get rid of Catch & Release and build walls in certain parts of the border if we are to reverse this crisis. But good luck with that! You'd have more luck working with Bozo, the clown. Oh wait, Congress is made up of clowns. Silly me.Asylum seekers must be present in the country to claim asylum, and they have to stay in the country while their asylum claim is being considered.
If there is no decision on an asylum claim within 180 days, the claimant can get authorization to work(1).
The average waiting time for immigration cases in 2018 was 1068 days, or 2 years 10 months(2).
There is currently a backlog of around 697,777 immigration cases waiting to be processed, as of 3/31/2018(3).
The number of immigration cases being closed by the courts per year has lagged below the number of new cases being opened each year(4), so the backlog of open cases continues to grow significantly(5).
Reducing the number of illegal border crossings won't necessarily reduce the rate at which the backlog increases, as asylum seekers can present themselves at any port of entry and claim asylum.
In light of all that, reducing the time it takes to process immigration cases, and clearing the current backlog, would seem an obvious priority.
A wall does neither.
(1) https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … lum/asylum
(2) http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/
(3) https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-relea … ovdelivery
(4) ibid (New Cases & Total Case Completions)
(5) ibid (Total Pending Cases)That's the issue with catch and release. Detaining those who come to file asylum claims until the time of their appearance in court would discourage bogus asylum claims - nearly 80% of claims are denied. As I understand it, 60-75% do show up for their court dates; that's not bad. But if asylum cases are addressed faster as you suggest, and if those seeking asylum expect to be detained until their case is heard, we'll see quite a decrease in illegal immigrants here in the states.
So do that, and put walling/fencing on the border where CBP believes it will do the most good. I'm convinced that's what Trump is pushing for.Speeding up the process would also deter people from claiming asylum for the purpose of getting authorization to work. Currently the USCIS are doing that by processing the most recent claims first, but that means cases that have been on the books for years are not being resolved.
"put walling/fencing on the border where CBP believes it will do the most good."
Already happening. In FY2017 the DHS received:
"$292 million for 40 miles of replacement fence along the Southwest border.
$79 million for border technology
$16 million for an additional multi-role enforcement aircraft
$32 million for six additional light enforcement helicopters
$44 million for continued deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers
$19 million for the small unmanned aerial system program"(1)
For the FY2018, the DHS received:
"$1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction, 28 miles of levee wall along the Rio Grande Valley, and 14 miles of new border wall system that will replace existing secondary fence in the San Diego Sector.
$975.8 million for high-priority tactical infrastructure and border security technology improvements to provide a layered defense at the border . . ."(2)
So what is it that Trump wants that the DHS is not already doing, other than calling border fencing a "wall"?
(1) https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/05/15/fac … 7-budget-0
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 0Final.pdfHe hasn't said, nor has DHS, where the additional barriers would be put up, but I've seen, literally, vast areas where there's no effective barriers. I've read anecdotal stories from border patrol agents who've stated that more barriers will help.
"He hasn't said, nor has DHS, where the additional barriers would be put up"
No, but he has said several times that 1,000 miles of wall is needed.
"They built the Great Wall of China. That’s 13,000 miles. Here, we actually need 1,000 because we have natural barriers. So we need 1,000"(1)
"In our case, we need really 1,000 miles. It’s 2,000 miles, but some is natural borders, natural barriers which are pretty good, not as good as the wall but pretty good; you know what, let’s"(2)
"“It’s 2,000 miles, but we need 1,000; you have natural barriers. We need 1,000 miles"(3)
What analysis is that distance based on?
(1) http://time.com/4091301/republican-deba … c-boulder/ (Republican presidential debate)
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVvUZEcXoUU (Campaign rally, Manassas, Va)
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzgxdzFSvGs (Campaign rally, Ashburn, Va)He has said that, but he's also getting more information regularly that will doubtless tell him that 1,000 miles is not necessary. "Should" he have all his ducks in a row before he spews? Yes, he should, but he doesn't. Incredibly frustrating reality.
". . . he's also getting more information regularly that will doubtless tell him that 1,000 miles is not necessary"
We don't have to speculate. In January 2018 the Trump administration sent a document to Senators called "Critical CBP Requirements to Improve Border Security", as reported at the time:
"The document says the $18 billion investment will cover 722 miles of border wall -- about 316 new miles of primary structure and about 407 miles of replacement and secondary wall"(1)
So the proposal is 722 miles of wall. Are you are aware of a different proposal from the Trump administration? If so, it would be helpful to share that here.
But that leads me to reiterate that the DHS has already started receiving funding for that work. In FY2017 the DHS received:
"$292 million for 40 miles of replacement fence along the Southwest border.
$79 million for border technology
$16 million for an additional multi-role enforcement aircraft
$32 million for six additional light enforcement helicopters
$44 million for continued deployment of Integrated Fixed Towers
$19 million for the small unmanned aerial system program"(2)
For the FY2018, the DHS received:
"$1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction, 28 miles of levee wall along the Rio Grande Valley, and 14 miles of new border wall system that will replace existing secondary fence in the San Diego Sector.
$975.8 million for high-priority tactical infrastructure and border security technology improvements to provide a layered defense at the border . . ."(3)
So again, what is it that Trump wants that the DHS is not already doing?
(1) https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/05/poli … index.html
(2) https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/05/15/fac … 7-budget-0
(3) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 0Final.pdf"The document says the $18 billion investment will cover 722 miles of border wall -- about 316 new miles of primary structure and about 407 miles of replacement and secondary wall"(1)
So the proposal is 722 miles of wall. Are you are aware of a different proposal from the Trump administration? If so, it would be helpful to share that here.
But that leads me to reiterate that the DHS has already started receiving funding for that work. In FY2017 the DHS received:"
So we know that 5 billion will cover more territory than the current barriers - 316 additional miles by the details in the CBP document, and some replacement along with bolstering some current fencing. That's based upon the 18 billion request. As I understand, the 5 billion is going to cover only a small portion of this.
For the FY2018, the DHS received:
"$1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction, 28 miles of levee wall along the Rio Grande Valley, and 14 miles of new border wall system that will replace existing secondary fence in the San Diego Sector.
$975.8 million for high-priority tactical infrastructure and border security technology improvements to provide a layered defense at the border . . ."(3)
So again, what is it that Trump wants that the DHS is not already doing?"
Trump has stated clearly: additional barriers. Where will these be? I don't know, but they will be along the southern border. I'm not overly concerned at this point as to exactly where they go because all border security has been neglected.
As I pointed out in another post, there are CBP agents, folks that work in the field and are presumably not so politically motivated in this matter, who believe that more barriers/fencing/walling will help. I believe them, and am quite willing to see some money "thrown" at additional barriers, but I also want to see an assessment of the results before more barriers are added.
This is really pretty simple, and considering the trillions of dollars wasted in previous decades by the federal government for programs that went nowhere or nearly so, I'm willing to watch as DHS gets 5 billion extra for more barriers. If that department gets it, I'll be VERY interested to see what happens with it.
You're not willing to do that, so we diverge.I always find it best to stay with the facts, where possible:
1. We've been saying $5 billion, but the figure is closer to six billion, at $5.7 billion.
2. The government has asked for: "$5.7 billion for construction of a steel barrier on the Southern Border to fund 234 miles of new physical barrier—an increase of $4.1 billion over the Committee bill"(2).
3. The DHS has already received funding for additional barriers.
FY2017: $292 million for 40 miles of replacement fence(3)
FY2018: $1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction(4)
For FY2019: a continuing resolution would provide a further $1.6 billion for new border wall construction(5)
So when you say Trump wants "additional barriers" you mean additional additional barriers. i.e. barriers in addition to the $3.5 billion worth of additional barriers already available.
4. The cost of the barriers is likely to be higher than the current administration is suggesting, partly because the CBP is evaluating designs and locations for border barriers without key information. We know that because the GAO published a report in July 2018 called:
"CBP Is Evaluating Designs and Locations for Border Barriers but Is Proceeding Without Key Information"(6)
5. Personal experience in the form of "anecdotes" is not a reliable way of measuring border security. It's not a question of sincerity. Personal experiences are just not objective. For example, the National Border Patrol Council once said that it:
". . . disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States"(7).
If you wouldn't accept the opinion of the body that represents border patrol staff as the basis of public policy, then you can't reasonably expect others to accept your "anecdotes" as the basis of public policy.
6. You are (rightly) concerned about the "trillions of dollars wasted in previous decades". So it's best to do everything possible to avoid adding to that. Therefore it makes sense to see what impact the $3.5 billion worth of additional barriers has, before ploughing more money in.
Based on facts currently available, that would be the most sensible approach.
(1)(2) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st … er-crisis/
(3) https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/05/15/fac … 7-budget-0
(4)(5)https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … 0Final.pdf (p.3)
(6) https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693488.pdf
(7) https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti … ayer-money"1. We've been saying $5 billion, but the figure is closer to six billion, at $5.7 billion."
Okay.
"3. The DHS has already received funding for additional barriers.
FY2017: $292 million for 40 miles of replacement fence(3)
FY2018: $1.6 billion for 32 miles of new border wall construction(4)
For FY2019: a continuing resolution would provide a further $1.6 billion for new border wall construction(5)
So when you say Trump wants "additional barriers" you mean additional additional barriers. i.e. barriers in addition to the $3.5 billion worth of additional barriers already available. "
Yes.
"5. Personal experience in the form of "anecdotes" is not a reliable way of measuring border security. It's not a question of sincerity. Personal experiences are just not objective. For example, the National Border Patrol Council once said that it:
". . . disagrees with wasting taxpayer money on building fences and walls along the border as a means of curtailing illegal entries into the United States"(7).
If you wouldn't accept the opinion of the body that represents border patrol staff as the basis of public policy, then you can't reasonably expect others to accept your "anecdotes" as the basis of public policy."
The National Border Control Council did indeed say that once. It doesn't say that anymore: https://bpunion.org/featured/op-ed-by-n … n-border/.
Of course there's some division among agents, but the trend is certainly towards more barriers. I'll take the anecdotes of men/women who've served down there, many for years.
"6. You are (rightly) concerned about the "trillions of dollars wasted in previous decades". So best to do everything possible to avoid adding to that. Therefore it makes sense to see what impact the $3.5 billion worth of additional barriers has, before ploughing more money in."
I'd like to see the 5 billion tossed in with the current allowance, then watch for the results. But anyway, you missed my point. My point is that after seeing the Federal government waste trillions, typically on programs it has no business taking on anyway, I'm willing to see 5 billion (plus money currently allowed) spent in this way, for something that the government is SUPPOSED to be doing.Thanks for clarifying your position. On the last two points:
"Of course there's some division among agents, but the trend is certainly towards more barriers."
I see no evidence of such a trend. E.g. the head of the NTEU, which represents 25,000 CBP officers, said:
". . . the border security issues of utmost concern to CBP OFO [Office of Field Operations] employees are the hiring and funding challenges that contribute to ports of entry being chronically understaffed . . ."(1)
Seems border patrol staff and groups have different views, which (as you say) is to be expected. But that's why public policy should not solely be based on personal anecdotes and experiences. They are too subjective.
On a side note, perhaps the best thing we can do for CBP officers right now is pay them. Currently 54,000 are being forced to work without pay(2). Putting those men and women under financial strain can't be good for them or border security.
"I'd like to see the 5 billion tossed in with the current allowance, then watch for the results."
I'm all for taking a pragmatic approach, but there are limits. All of the supposed benefits are based on assumptions, hunches, and anecdotes. In contrast, what we know as matters of fact, indicate that the benefits may be very limited.
E.g.
1. We know the majority of illegal immigrants do not enter the country by crossing the border illegally. The majority (1.4 million since 2016) enter legally, then overstay their visas(3)(4)(5)
2. We know the majority of hard drugs are seized at border entry points, not between border entry points, for the simple reason that it's easier to hide drugs if you're part of a large crowd than if you are on your own in the middle of nowhere(6).
3. We know there is: ". . . no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States"(7).
4. We know asylum seekers can apply for asylum at any port of entry(8). So even if it were impossible to cross the border illegally, that would not necessarily reduce asylum claims.
5. We know things that could have been done to reduce the backlog of immigration cases have not been done. E.g. the number of immigration judges increased by 41 between 2016-2018, but the total number of judges is still less than the number USCIS has received funding for(9).
Etc.
On the other side of the argument, you are presenting the case that there are:
1. ". . . folks that work in the field and are presumably not so politically motivated in this matter, who believe that more barriers/fencing/walling will help".
All politics aside, spending $8.5 billion on that basis would not be sensible or responsible.
A more sensible approach would be:
1. Use the $3.5 billion already available to build new and replacement barriers.
2. Carefully monitor, measure and analyse the impact of those barriers on illegal flows.
3. If the impact is significant (and there are no unforeseen adverse effects) use that to justify a request to allocate more funds.
4. In the meantime use funds already received for recruitment, to actually recruit more immigration judges, lawyers, asylum officers, court clerks etc. to reduce the backlog of immigration cases.
5. Use the discretionary funding included in previous appropriation Bills to fully staff ports of entry, and continue to increase the number of CBP officers.
6. Continue investing in the development and research of new technology that makes monitoring the border more efficient, to improve detection and interdiction.
7. Don't penalize the ordinary men and women who work for the government because Congress won't do its job. Instead introduce a Bill (or resolution to avoid problems with the Constitution) that stipulates unless comprehensive immigration reform Bill is delivered within 6 months, all members of Congress will voluntarily contribute their salaries to charity. It likely won't pass, but Congress will have to refuse to vote on it, or vote against it, which will increase pressure.
Based on currently available facts, that would be a more sensible approach.
(1) https://www.nteu.org/legislative-action … urity-buck
(2) https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/n … p-shutdown
(3) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.7)
(4) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … pdf#page=5 (p.5)
(5) https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files … Report.pdf (p.iv)
(6) https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp- … statistics
(7) https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/272488.pdf (Mexico)
(8) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
(9) https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694535.pdf (p. 9)
There is currently a backlog of around 697,777 immigration cases waiting to be processed, as of 3/31/2018(3).
A 49 percent increase since January 2017, when President Donald Trump took office, according to Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).
Also, because of the shutdown, 40k+ hearings have been cancelled and for each week the shutdown continues, there'll be 20k more.Not sure how this bears on the question. Does this mean we should be in favor of a barrier, or not in favor?
Not exactly. Good data there, but you failed to mention that part of the 5 mil the President is asking for is to pay for immigration judges. That is how you clear the backlog, or at least make a decent dent in it. Furthermore, if illegals cannot get over the wall, that is one less case that has to be processed. There is a reason why you see less illegals crossing over barriers that are well built and more where there are no walls at all.
Three issues with that.
1. More judges alone will not clear the backlog. There needs to be more asylum officers, more immigration lawyers, more clerks etc. The entire system needs to be upgraded, not just judges.
2. Just because the current administration has requested funding for additional judges, doesn't mean it's going recruit those additional judges. A report published by the Government Accountability Office this year found that:
"In January 2018, EOIR [Executive Office for Immigration Review] officials told us that the agency had a total of 330 immigration judges, an increase of 41 judges since September 2016"(1)
Even with that increase, the total number of judges in 2018 was 54 fewer than the EOIR is authorized to have based on the funding it received in FY2016/17(2).
What's the point of requesting funding to recruit judges when you haven't even used the funding you received for that from 2 year ago?
3. Claiming asylum is perfectly legal. If someone cannot enter the country illegally (e.g. because they can't climb over or under a big wall), they can go to a port of entry and claim asylum there. So a wall will not reduce the number of people claiming asylum. The approach of the current administration is to try to limit who can claim asylum (even at ports of entry). That approach is illegal under federal law(3).
(1)(2) https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694535.pdf (p. 9)
(3) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
Related Discussions
- 271
Will the Trump Wall keep us safe?
by Lela Cargill 5 years ago
Explain how Trump's Wall will be different from the Berlin Wall or the Wall in Israel. How will it "keep us safe"?
- 37
Why are Democrats obsessed with illegal immigrants?
by Readmikenow 4 years ago
Their behavior is an insult and a slap in the face of everyone who has come or does come to this country legally. That means they obeyed the laws of the land. Paid their money, was interviewed, stays out of trouble. This country NEEDs legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are...
- 54
If liberals think the US is so bad, why don't they leave?
by Readmikenow 5 years ago
really get tired of people who say the United States is a horrible place. I have no idea why they just don't go to a country they think is better. I wonder if they are too unintelligent, cowards or just lack the conviction and commitment it would take to move to another country. ...
- 52
The "Cost" of Illegal Immigration
by MikeNV 13 years ago
The media continues to omit the word ILLEGAL when they attack the Citizens of Arizona for taking action when the Federal Government will not.The Arizona law is NOT an anti immigration law... it's an anti ILLEGAL immigration law.I did not compile this list... I've had it for some time. You can...
- 17
Cost of Illegal Immigration Infographics
by Susie Lehto 8 years ago
Have you ever wondered how much money from taxpayers goes to illegal immigrants in your state? In 2013, taxpayers shouldered $100 billion in state spending on illegal aliens!U.S. State Infographs: http://www.fairus.org/toolkit/state_infographics I would like to see the stats for 2014-2015. I...
- 118
The Many Cost Of Illegal Immigrants - Hard To Face But Relevant
by Sharlee 19 months ago
Illegal immigrants who entered US since Biden took office to cost taxpayers $20+ billion a year: analysis -- Biden administration has released more than a million illegal immigrants into the US"FIRST ON FOX: The number of illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. since President...