Donald Trump has said on many occasions that he will do X (build the wall) "with or without Congress"
Question - why aren't Republicans going apocalyptic?
Perhaps, just maybe, possibly, they recognize and accept that what we're doing now isn't working. AND really do want to solve the problem if millions of illegal aliens entering and inhabiting our nation.
I have my doubts, but it is one possible answer to your question.
But they went crazy anytime Obama used an EO, no matter how innocuous. Why not now?
Maybe because Obama used his to perform illegal actions. Like ignore the laws on immigration.
"Obama used his to perform illegal actions"
Since when did you become concerned about a POTUS performing legal actions?
BTW, exactly what was illegal? Didn't the very conservative SC just uphold DACA?
Didn't Trump take three tries to get his Muslim Ban to barely pass muster in a very conservative SC?
What "Muslim Ban?" To my knowledge Trump has never said, or instituted or tried to institute any Muslim ban?
Then you don't listen to him much, do you. Here is one quote - From a Dec 8, 2015 interview:
"Geist: Donald, a customs agent would then ask a person their religion?
Trump: That would be probably—they would say, “Are you Muslim?”
Geist: And if they said, “Yes,” they would not be allowed in the country?
Trump: That’s correct."
Can't be any plainer than that!!
It may have to do with what it is that Trump is attempting to accomplish. That said, I'm not keen on him doing it with a national emergency because the precedent will be set, and later some radical will try to do the same thing for an ILLEGIT purpose, and succeed.
What makes Trump's national emergency a LEGIT purpose?
As a part of his duty is to protect our borders, protect us from invasion, it is completely LEGIT.
And no, cries that 600,000 entering the country every year is not an "invasion" are nothing but diversion from fact.
Where the hell did you get such a ridiculous number. It hasn't been true since Bush. Obama cut that number down by an order of magnitude. 600,000, indeed.
Reports are that approximately 300,000 are caught, with another 200,000 successfully evading the law. Here is one such claim, from 2017 (don't forget that the numbers are climbing): "There were 303,916 border apprehensions in the southwest U.S. during fiscal 2017"
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 … tly-cross/
I leave it to you to find your own estimate of how many are successful; be sure to look around and check several "estimates" from several different sources.
(I do apologize for the typo: 600,000 should be 500,000. For myself, can't see that it makes any difference, though.)
Here is the first problem in how you interpreted your source. It does say their were almost 400,000 apprehensions (not your word "caught") in FY 2018. But that sentence finishes with "many were people presenting themselves to border agents and seeking asylum."
The article doesn't estimate what "many" is, so let's assume 40% since clearly it isn't a majority, which would be "most". So that leaves 240,000. The article doesn't say how many are caught trying to come through ports of entry where the vast majority of drugs and other contraband come through.
The border patrol estimates that their success rate of stopping people trying to get passed them is between 55 and 85%. So, doing a bit of math, that means between 42,000 and 200,000 made it across.
Before Obama, it was above 2,000,000
Depending on other non-official sources, that number can be higher or lower, so I will stick with the official CBP estimate.
Now, what harm does that cause the U.S.? Not much really. those illegals are, on average, more law abiding than natural born citizens and they are a net gain to the economy. But, a few do kill Americans and non-Americans in America, but that are Americans kill at a much higher rate than illegals do.
ALSO, how come the intelligence chiefs who presented the intel summary to Congress today DID NOT identify the Southern border as being a national security risk. Why not?
"The border patrol estimates that their success rate of stopping people trying to get passed them is between 55 and 85%. So, doing a bit of math, that means between 42,000 and 200,000 made it across."
I don't entirely trust CBP statistics on the percentage of individuals caught while trying to cross - there's too much evidence that there's been some fudging over the years to try and bolster the apparent success rate. Bottom line? You can bet that the figures aren't ANYWHERE near 85%.
"ALSO, how come the intelligence chiefs who presented the intel summary to Congress today DID NOT identify the Southern border as being a national security risk. Why not?"
No idea why they didn't identify it as a security risk. I've attached 2 sources to back my views, one of which is an article I wrote a few years ago. From that article I recommend the sections Border Control Statistics and They're Already here and more are Coming for some very solid information regards the southern border.
https://cis.org/Bensman/House-Homeland- … filtration
https://hubpages.com/politics/The-Truth … r-Security
Perhaps CBP counts only those crossings that they KNOW happened but never caught? While pretending there weren't thousands more than they never knew happened?
That may be part of it, but the difference between what is reported from the top, and what is understood, and likely reported by the agents in the field, is too vast a difference to be merely those they never knew happened IMO.
And what is your source for "and what is understood, and likely reported by the agents in the field" How do individual agents in the field know the whole picture, even if their small window might be correct? Just because one is right, it doesn't mean the 10,000 others are.
The book Illegal Entries by retired CBP agent John Slagel. It was written in 2004, and he states that even though CBP reports 1 in 5 are caught crossing, that AGENTS IN THE FIELD know better. He sites that agents in the field know it's more like 1 in 10 being caught.
I'm not at all convinced that John was pulling from a small sample of agents all serving in one sector. John also stated that ranchers living on the border gave the same figure, about 1 in 10.
The book is obviously old, but it points to a discrepancy between what's being reported by top level and what agents are seeing. Does this still happen? Yes, it does, because human being are still in charge. When we can make ourselves look better for career advancement with altered numbers, the temptation to do it will be grabbed by many, and it was happening then, so it's happening now.
Has border security improved since then? Yes it has. But how much? My point is that the difference between field and reported was 50%. Is it still that high, I don't know. But there's no convincing me that the overall catch rate on our borders is 85%. From all I've read, that's a good piece of fiction being produced by someone at either CBP or higher up in Homeland Security.
About the way I feel, too. An 80+% capture rate is unrealistic and no one should believe it. Too much says it is grossly overstated, and just as you say it is in the interests of those making the comment to do so.
2004? So much has changed since then, especially in the Obama administration, that his stats can hardly be relevant. To begin with the, the number of illegal crossings are a mere shadow of what they were in 2004.
Also, it isn't 85%. It is between 50% and 85%.
"2004? So much has changed since then, especially in the Obama administration, that his stats can hardly be relevant."
Granted. The stats of 1 in 10 being caught aren't relevant anymore. Look again at my last post please - my primary point is the incredible difference between figures reported by CBP and those noted in the field. It's the difference, not the actual figures that is largely, though not solely, responsible for my rejecting ANY notion of something like 85% catch rate. As I stated, John's book clearly points to some cooking of books, which hasn't changed.
"Also, it isn't 85%. It is between 50% and 85%."
Right, and again I reject even the possibility of 85%, so it's 50% and what? I might accept a 1 in every 2 being caught, partly because of some improvement in security, and partly, as you say, the number of crossings has declined, which likely allows CBP to allocate resources differently.
I've fully supported it above. It's up to you to support the idea that the CBP has changed the MO described by John Slagel. I'm simply standing by what he knew then, and we've no proof that this tendency has changed, none. Many different people, sure, but in organizations these things don't typically change.
Tell me about the housecleaning that's been done in CBP/Homeland Security. When I see that, I'll know I have to take another look.
The thing his, HX, the other sources use methods other than actual's. If they ALL came up lower or higher than the official figure, then that would make the CBP suspect. But since the independent estimates listed in the article come up on both sides of the official estimate, that gives it credence.
Aw, c'mon Eso. You can't possibly believe that 40% of the people coming into the country illegally are actually seeking asylum from persecution. They have been trained to ask that, yes, but there is no chance they believe they will actually get it. Personally I'd put the number at, max, 5%, although seeking asylum still does not give them the right to cross the border illegally.
"Now, what harm does that cause the U.S.? Not much really."
Estimates run around $150B dollars each year, though I did see one "expert" economist put the figure at $500B. If that isn't "harm" then certainly a measley 6B for a wall is nothing but chump change. And, of course, it is not possible that illegal aliens residing here are "more law abiding than natural born citizens" - not when they commit a crime every day they are here, every day they work at a job or drive a car.
"ALSO, how come the intelligence chiefs who presented the intel summary to Congress today DID NOT identify the Southern border as being a national security risk."
Probably for two reasons; 1) they are not concerned with economic, cultural or societal damage; only physical damage such as 911. 2) they value their jobs and in this political world it isn't wise to express such things. What do YOU think - why did they not indicate that a cost of $150B per year is a "national security risk"?
"Aw, c'mon Eso. You can't possibly believe that 40% of the people coming into the country illegally are actually seeking asylum from persecution. " - Yep, I can. This is today, not 10 years ago when what you think was truer.
A "few" is 5% to 10%. "Several' would be 10 - 20%, "Most" is more than 50%. So that puts "many" between 20 and 50%. I like my 40%.
Are you saying "Estimates run around $150B dollars each year," is the net annual loss for having illegals here? Try this:
= Nearly every dollar earned by illegal immigrants is spent immediately, and the average wage for US citizens is $10.25/hour with an average of 34 hours per week. This means that approximately 8 million US jobs are dependent upon economic activity produced by illegal immigrant activities within the US. (the numbers are source references)
- "A 2007 review of the academic literature by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that "over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use." 
- "Studies generally conclude there is a small adverse impact on the wages of lower-skilled workers from immigration and some benefit for higher-skilled workers:"
- "Reuters reported that illegal immigrants, as well as legal immigrants in the country less than five years, generally are not eligible for Medicaid. However, they can get Medicaid coverage for health emergencies if they are in a category of people otherwise eligible, such as children, pregnant women, families with dependent children, elderly or disabled individuals, and meet other requirements. The cost of this emergency care was less than 1% of Medicaid costs in North Carolina from 2001–2004 and the majority was for childbirth and related complications. USA Today reported that "Illegal immigrants can get emergency care through Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and people with disabilities. But they can't get non-emergency care unless they pay. They are ineligible for most other public benefits.""
Donald Trump wants to declare a so-called national security emergency because of the so-called "invasion" of illegals across our Southern borders. Since the intel chiefs didn't bring it up, they obviously don't agree with you and Trump.
BTW, even if the $150B/yr was true, it amounts to rounding error of the national GDP.
Then we will have to agree to disagree on what percentage of illegal border crossings are an honest attempt at what the US offers as asylum. I find yours to be ludicrous and you don't like mine.
I know full well that there are claims illegals pay more in taxes than the services they receive. And I don't believe a single one of them; the school resources they use are as much as the total taxes paid, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.
There are approximately 1.5M illegal children in school, and it costs approximately 12B to educate them. Could be mistaken but I don't think that includes free school lunches, busing to and from school, special teachers for ESL, extra "catch up" classes for undereducated children, etc.
Illegals pay approximately 12B in payroll taxes, thus paying for most (but not all) of the education costs. And school is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to costs due directly or indirectly to illegal aliens. And we haven't even touched in such things as EIC, which some illegals can get, and far more than they pay in taxes.
Don't tell me they support themselves and pay their own way...not when half our own families, earning far more and with smaller family sizes, cannot pay any net federal taxes themselves.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008 … ol-crisis/
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/s … pay-taxes/
Your first source looks, from an extreme right-leaning point of view, at one aspect of the total issue. It ignores all of the others.
Your second source, if I read it right, supports my point at least has it relates to illegals pay a ton in taxes which, according to people who actually study the issue, more than covers the cost to society that illegals might cause.
Bottom line, most of conservative talking points about illegals are myths.
Then you need to go back and read them again, this time with an open mind. The first says there are 1.5M illegal kids in school, and what it costs us to educate them: the second says how much illegals pay in payroll taxes. And the two are about the same; that "ton" of taxes is eaten up by educating their kids with nothing left over.
But it's always useful to attack the source, isn't it? If you don't like what it says, attack it as "right leaning". You could have provided other sources as to how many kids there are, but no. Just say it's from a right leaning source and thereby not to be believed.
Sources like Judicial Watch are always highly biased to the right. They are no better than the Judge report or Brietbart.
I didn't provide other sources to how many kids there are because I don't care only about a particular aspect of it. I care about the TOTAL impact.
But, if you want these kids wandering the streets joining gangs, I suppose you could petition the states to kick these criminals (the kids are purposefully illegal after all) out of school I suppose.
And why do you find illegals paying taxes a bad thing?
You don't care a particular aspect, I know. Even when a single expense gives the lie to illegals paying their own way - that way you can still accept that they do even though half the citizens don't. But it's not a very reasonable way to look at things - when a tiny portion of the TOTAL picture shows the falsehood of the picture promoted that's all that is necessary to show that picture is false to fact.
Yes, you can cry tears about the kids that wouldn't be learning anything if not at our expense. But those tears have nothing to do with the cost of supporting millions of illegal aliens, nothing to do with the usefulness of a wall, nothing to do with the folly of allowing unlimited illegals to feed at the American trough. Just another diversion from the topic, then, isn't it?
Where did you get that I don't like illegals paying taxes? Yet another diversion, I suppose, for I certainly did not say such a thing. I said (and showed) they don't pay nearly enough to cover the costs of living here.
"Even when a single expense gives the lie to illegals paying their own way - " - makes no sense what so ever. Let's apply your logic to yourself. How about if you refuse to get health insurance and then have an expensive accident and were taken care of in a hospital you can't afford to pay for. You just created an expense. By your logic, even if you paid a billion dollars in taxes, your expense means you aren't paying your own way.
The cost of supporting millions of illegal aliens is more than made up by the jobs they create and the taxes they pay. Illegals DO NOT feed at the American trough. They work there asses off unlike many of their American counterparts.
You used your second source which says illegals do pay taxes as a counter to what I maintain - that they pay their own way.
The " I don't like illegals paying taxes? " came from my first impression of "The first says there are 1.5M illegal kids in school, and what it costs us to educate them: the second says how much illegals pay in payroll taxes. And the two are about the same; that "ton" of taxes is eaten up by educating their kids with nothing left over."
Upon rereading it, I see it doesn't imply that, it says you disagree with the experts whose studies say the illegals pay for their costs to society with money left over.
If "A" disproves X, we don't need "B,C,D,E...W" and so on to add to that proof. A single example is sufficient to prove the fallacy. You know and understand this principle very well - why keep harping on it?
No, I used the second source to give an informed guess as to how much payroll taxes illegals pay. It doesn't even cover the very first expense they incur, which tells us all (including you) that they do not pay their way. I most certainly DO disagree with the "experts" that look at a handful of expenses and declare that it is all of them, with the (false) result that those taxes pay for ALL the costs of supporting the illegals. The fact that their taxes don't even pay for the very first, obvious, expense - educating their children - makes this very plain. We don't need to add the dozens/hundreds of other costs incurred because of illegal aliens to understand that.
But what about you? Can you show that they pay multiples of the cost to educate 1.5M children in the public school system in payroll taxes? Or will you declare that the small amount paid in sales taxes, automobile fees, etc. cover it all? Because if you can do that I certainly have to question why half our citizens can't pay their own way with larger salaries and smaller families!
The fallacy is that "A" did not disprove the hypothisis that illegals benefit society more than they cost it. You just said it did without any proof - sort of like your hero Trump.
I, rather studies can, show that that illegals benefit the American society more than it costs it. Actually, I already have earlier in this forum.
And yet I provided two links showing that. You don't like them (too right leaning to give accurate results as to the number of children in the country illegally) then find your own. We can debate which is correct.
What you showed was a convoluted reasoning that illegal aliens increase the economy, with an implied (and false) insinuation that without them the work would not get done. What you failed to produce was any idea of the cost of supporting those same aliens.
Here is an honest question My Esoteric. I don't know the answer, but maybe you have come across some information that might answer it.
I have seen the numbers you presented that say illegals end up contributing more than they cost before. In most instances, I recall that the benefit was determined by summing their contributions through payroll taxes and paycheck spending.
Each time I see that determination I wonder if those aggregates are based on the assumption that the jobs the illegals are working, (to accumulate those payroll taxes and paycheck spending), would not exist if the illegals didn't have them.
I think that is a false assumption. I think those jobs would still be there, but they would be filled by legal workers instead, (+/- a small percentage maybe). Do you know if that is the assumption behind those numbers saying the illegals contribute more than they cost?
If I am not misunderstanding the information you presented, I can't see how that cannot mean those aggregate numbers are based on a flawed assumption.
Even if it could be said that many of those jobs would not be filled if an illegal wasn't filling them, wouldn't that still negatively impact those numbers used to claim a net benefit? Am I missing something?
GA, farmers all over the US have crops rot in the fields because they can no longer find labor to harvest them. I can show you photos of fields full of produce rotting in the sun proving this.
Are you taking in consideration the higher prices we are paying because the migrants can no longer fill the jobs no one else wants?
I live in an agricultural area, (way up here in Maryland), where I can imagine the problem you describe Randy. But my point wasn't pro or anti-migrant/immigrant.
And it wasn't whether the data that illegals contribute more than they cost, (although I am skeptical of that argument), is accurate. My thoughts are about the inference that the tax and spending contributions wouldn't be there without them.
GA - In response to "I think that is a false assumption. I think those jobs would still be there, but they would be filled by legal workers instead, (+/- a small percentage maybe). Do you know if that is the assumption behind those numbers saying the illegals contribute more than they cost?"
I could answer that employers can't find enough workers to fill vacancies they have, but that only applies to the last few years, say since 2015. But most studies use data when the unemployment rate was in the 5 - 6% range, (5% is still considered full employment). So you have to dig deeper.
Deeper gets you to the fact that most lower paying jobs were at hyper-full employment (more jobs than people to fill them) level since those are the first to be filled. For the two to be true (your assumption and full-employment) one would have to believe that employers are leaving jobs empty because they can't find an illegal to fill them.
If the studies were using data from the recession, they you might be right.
Nothing, Randy, nothing other than his ego which is as big as the sky and as black as night.
by Mike Russo 7 months ago
Here is an interactive map of the "Wall" with video links to view the entire Southern Border from the air. It was produced by USA Today and their crew who filmed the entire border from a four day helicopter ride.This site has a wealth of information that you can explore and learn about...
by Ralph Schwartz 8 months ago
The President will make a national address tonight on the security crisis at the southern border. Initially the networks refused to air the speech, but soon realized it would be a terrible decision with Trump's high popularity among voters. The media will however allow Democrats who...
by JOC 8 weeks ago
On the same day Trump confirms to the whole world that he's truly a racist, his administration comes up with a policy that mirrors international norms. In it, those seeking asylum must make their claims in the first country they arrive in. It does have exceptions, which we all know this...
by Jack Lee 17 months ago
Do you think this is a good idea?Is it legal under ourlaws?Is the border situation getting better or worse?How should the US deal with the convoy of migrants coming our way?Do you think building the wall is only long term solution?
by MikeNV 7 years ago
$10 Billion per month to spend in Afghanistan per month "fighting terrorists". How many people know the cost of a Gallon of fuel to the military in Afghanistan is $13 per Gallon?30,000 AMERICAN TROOPS on the South Korea/North Korea Border.And the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSES to...
by ga anderson 4 years ago
I think Pres. Obama's Immigration Reform speech was one of the best he has given. He touched on all the right points. And I like the content of his proposed action.Here is the speech:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeT_vu31eawBut... I also think it was a pure political move. I do not believe he was...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|