Shutdown Over Border Security?

[Tassman]

Source: https://www.dps.texas.gov/administration/crime_records/pages/txcriminalalienstatistics.htm

These figures do not attempt to allege that foreign nationals in the country illegally commit more crimes than other groups. It simply identifies thousands of crimes that should not have occurred and thousands of victims that should not have been victimized because the perpetrator should not be here

© Copyright Original Source

Nevertheless, the Trump argument and that of his supporters that illegal immigrants are 'drug dealers, criminals, rapists" is bogus. There's no crisis. The stats certainly don't warrant declaring a National Emergency for his unnecessary Border Wall. The only "emergency" for Trump is the fear of losing his base.

"The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 16 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015. The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 7.9 percent and 77 percent below that of native-born Americans for sex crimes and larceny, respectively. For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 50 percent below that of native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 66 percent below that of native-born Americans".

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant

[Bill the Cat]

Nevertheless, the Trump argument and that of his supporters that illegal immigrants are 'drug dealers, criminals, rapists" is bogus. There's no crisis. The stats certainly don't warrant declaring a National Emergency for his unnecessary Border Wall. The only "emergency" for Trump is the fear of losing his base.

"The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 16 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015. The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 7.9 percent and 77 percent below that of native-born Americans for sex crimes and larceny, respectively. For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 50 percent below that of native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 66 percent below that of native-born Americans".

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant

Again, their victims would be alive had they not been here.

[Tassman]

Again, their victims would be alive had they not been here.

That's no argument. The point is that there's no crisis requiring the declaration of a State of Emergency, with all that entails.

[Littlejoe]

Nevertheless, the Trump argument and that of his supporters that illegal immigrants are 'drug dealers, criminals, rapists" is bogus. There's no crisis. The stats certainly don't warrant declaring a National Emergency for his unnecessary Border Wall. The only "emergency" for Trump is the fear of losing his base.

"The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 16 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015. The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 7.9 percent and 77 percent below that of native-born Americans for sex crimes and larceny, respectively. For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 50 percent below that of native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 66 percent below that of native-born Americans".

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant

So you're saying you are perfectly fine with the US shipping every illegal we catch over to Australia? No fair vetting them first. But, we know your country won't do that as they have one of the strictest immigration policies in the world.

So, I think your argument is absolutely ignorant. In Texas alone we know that at least 46 people were killed last year by illegals immigrants because that's how many were convicted for it. They didn't catch everyone so, it could be higher. So, 46 people died needlessly because YOU think it's OK for them to be here. 46 people, fathers, mothers, children who will never see their loved ones again because, Hey! The murder rate for illegals is less than natives so it's ok....

You isolated island nation prigs in Aussie have no idea what you're talking about. You don't have the constant threat of theft, destruction of property, rapes, etc. from the constant flow of illegals coming into your country.

Here's a first hand perspective: https://www.facebook.com/alison.ande...18903298918334

[Terraceth]

Again, their victims would be alive had they not been here.

By this argument, we should ban all immigration. After all, any victims of legal immigrants would be alive if they had not been here.

[Tassman]

So, I think your argument is absolutely ignorant. In Texas alone we know that at least 46 people were killed last year by illegals immigrants because that's how many were convicted for it. They didn't catch everyone so, it could be higher. So, 46 people died needlessly because YOU think it's OK for them to be here. 46 people, fathers, mothers, children who will never see their loved ones again because, Hey! The murder rate for illegals is less than natives so it's ok....

[carpedm9587]

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: there is no one panacea for illegal immigration. The "big beautiful wall" along 700-900 miles of southern border is a nice campaign optic, but there is zero evidence that it is a) necessary or b) the best way. We have to look at why there is illegal immigration, and address it at the root cause. Until you do that, if you build a wall you may slow down some illegal immigration, but a lot of it will find ways over, around, and under the wall - and if most of the illegal immigration is not coming from that vector (as Tass notes), then you won't be slowing down the bul of illegal immigration.

As best I can tell, illegal immigration happens for a fairly simple reason: it's better here than it is there. By a lot. So long as that is true, attempts at illegal immigration will continue. So any decent border security is going to do two things:

1) Attempt to firm up the borders
2) Attempt to address the disparity between quality of life here and quality of life there.

Firming up the borders means data-based, combined, selective use of barriers, technology, and personnel. It doesn't mean arbitrarily throwing up 700-900 miles of new wall. Addressing the quality of life disparity is a harder nut to crack. Given that I don't think any of us want quality of life to get worse here, it leaves one option: finding ways to enable a better quality of life there. The strategies we have been using clearly are not working, so it's time for some creative thinking and investment. One thing I know from personal experience: reigning in international corporate greed can only help. Too many of our companies wade into developing countries and effectively pillage them, bringing the vast majority of the profits into the U.S., which creates the very disparity I'm talking about. Beyond that, we need to do something more substantial than throw money at it (which tends to do nothing more than increase corruption, which also increases the disparity).

Whatever we do, there will come a point where we say, "that's good enough." We will never shut it down completely, and cost/benefit has to apply - as it does for everything else.

[Tassman]

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: there is no one panacea for illegal immigration. The "big beautiful wall" along 700-900 miles of southern border is a nice campaign optic, but there is zero evidence that it is a) necessary or b) the best way. We have to look at why there is illegal immigration, and address it at the root cause. Until you do that, if you build a wall you may slow down some illegal immigration, but a lot of it will find ways over, around, and under the wall - and if most of the illegal immigration is not coming from that vector (as Tass notes), then you won't be slowing down the bul of illegal immigration.

As best I can tell, illegal immigration happens for a fairly simple reason: it's better here than it is there. By a lot. So long as that is true, attempts at illegal immigration will continue. So any decent border security is going to do two things:

1) Attempt to firm up the borders
2) Attempt to address the disparity between quality of life here and quality of life there.

Firming up the borders means data-based, combined, selective use of barriers, technology, and personnel. It doesn't mean arbitrarily throwing up 700-900 miles of new wall. Addressing the quality of life disparity is a harder nut to crack. Given that I don't think any of us want quality of life to get worse here, it leaves one option: finding ways to enable a better quality of life there. The strategies we have been using clearly are not working, so it's time for some creative thinking and investment. One thing I know from personal experience: reigning in international corporate greed can only help. Too many of our companies wade into developing countries and effectively pillage them, bringing the vast majority of the profits into the U.S., which creates the very disparity I'm talking about. Beyond that, we need to do something more substantial than throw money at it (which tends to do nothing more than increase corruption, which also increases the disparity).

Whatever we do, there will come a point where we say, "that's good enough." We will never shut it down completely, and cost/benefit has to apply - as it does for everything else.

I agree with all of that. It's worth reinforcing that the immigrants are fleeing a hell the US helped create.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...foreign-policy

It would be good policy to increase US aid to Central America so as to promote more stable security and economic conditions to encourage potential migrants to stay in their host nations instead of making the dangerous trip to the U.S. border. Better for them and better for the USA.

[Littlejoe]

Most of the illegal immigration in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona (by a large margin) is coming from the Mexican Border. IDK about California, but I imagine a great many there as well. And as porous as the Southern Border is, there are people of other nations, not just Hispanics using that border to come in. You don't know if it will help or not. If it saves lives, then it saves lives. Ranchers by the droves are telling their stories about murders, thefts, cattle rustling, sexual assaults, drug runnings of illegals coming across their land because it's easy to do. A wall or Razor wire topped steel fence along with better monitoring will go a long way towards discouraging illegal crossing. Their are many places right now that monitoring would only let us count how many are crossing with zero chance of catching most of them. As Carpe pointed out, there's no one thing that will do the whole job, but a tangible barrier is a great start. A fact that you isolated people on your island nation just have no capacity to see...and, it's not lost on us.

I noticed you didn't volunteer to take all our captured illegals....hypocrite.

[Littlejoe]

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: there is no one panacea for illegal immigration. The "big beautiful wall" along 700-900 miles of southern border is a nice campaign optic, but there is zero evidence that it is a) necessary or b) the best way. We have to look at why there is illegal immigration, and address it at the root cause. Until you do that, if you build a wall you may slow down some illegal immigration, but a lot of it will find ways over, around, and under the wall - and if most of the illegal immigration is not coming from that vector (as Tass notes), then you won't be slowing down the bul of illegal immigration.

As best I can tell, illegal immigration happens for a fairly simple reason: it's better here than it is there. By a lot. So long as that is true, attempts at illegal immigration will continue. So any decent border security is going to do two things:

1) Attempt to firm up the borders
2) Attempt to address the disparity between quality of life here and quality of life there.

Firming up the borders means data-based, combined, selective use of barriers, technology, and personnel. It doesn't mean arbitrarily throwing up 700-900 miles of new wall. Addressing the quality of life disparity is a harder nut to crack. Given that I don't think any of us want quality of life to get worse here, it leaves one option: finding ways to enable a better quality of life there. The strategies we have been using clearly are not working, so it's time for some creative thinking and investment. One thing I know from personal experience: reigning in international corporate greed can only help. Too many of our companies wade into developing countries and effectively pillage them, bringing the vast majority of the profits into the U.S., which creates the very disparity I'm talking about. Beyond that, we need to do something more substantial than throw money at it (which tends to do nothing more than increase corruption, which also increases the disparity).

Whatever we do, there will come a point where we say, "that's good enough." We will never shut it down completely, and cost/benefit has to apply - as it does for everything else.

Explain then why the very rich build walls and high fences around their estates, and people live in fenced gated communities if they are ineffective. I agree there's not one size fits all fix, but a barrier at the border is a good start. Especially to people who are having murders and such on their properties on the border. Some of those people are carrying arms at all times because of the threats to themselves or their workers.

Again, read this first hand perspective: https://www.facebook.com/alison.ande...18903298918334 this is not an isolated incident here on the Texas Border. It's a common story that I've heard over and over. CP worked for a Gas Compression company that had a TON of issues with their stuff being burgled and vandalized by illegals. This is a very serious issue for many of those here on the border. It also makes possible the abuse of the illegals by unscrupulous businesses because...who will they complain to?

[carpedm9587]

Explain then why the very rich build walls and high fences around their estates, and people live in fenced gated communities if they are ineffective.

So, first, I didn't say "walls are ineffective." I said there is no evidence (so far) that we need 700-900 miles of concrete wall along the southern border. Trump's call is evidence-free and is nothing more than a campaign optic. And you are comparing apples and oranges. First, an estate is a LOT smaller than a country the size of the U.S. Second, if you're going to compare these two things, compare them as they actually are: the southern border is less than 1/4 of the total U.S. border, and Trump's 700-900 miles of wall would make the total walled off part 1000-1200 miles (over 350 miles of the existing fencing is anti-vehicle fencing that can be easily stepped over). So with his addition, the total fencing would be less than 1/8 of the total lower-48 U.S. boundary, and less than 1/12 of the entire U.S. border. So the question would be, would a rich person put a wall around 1/8th to 1/12th of their estate and think that is valuable?

I agree there's not one size fits all fix, but a barrier at the border is a good start. Especially to people who are having murders and such on their properties on the border. Some of those people are carrying arms at all times because of the threats to themselves or their workers.

A barrier MAY be a good thing - strategically, at high-risk locations. But we need the data to drive the choice. Arbitrarily throwing up a wall is not the answer.

Again, read this first hand perspective: https://www.facebook.com/alison.ande...18903298918334 this is not an isolated incident here on the Texas Border. It's a common story that I've heard over and over. CP worked for a Gas Compression company that had a TON of issues with their stuff being burgled and vandalized by illegals. This is a very serious issue for many of those here on the border. It also makes possible the abuse of the illegals by unscrupulous businesses because...who will they complain to?

As I have have said multiple times, an example is not "data." It is a single data point. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of investing millions of dollars to revamp a highway system because someone had an accident. If there is a pattern of accidents, then investigate the "why" and then apply the fix. You don't just start ripping up road until you have answered those questions. Trump hasn't answered any of those questions. "Immigrants bad" and "walls good" is an easy message, and rallies his base - so he uses it and his base eats it up. But it is an almost fact-free exercise. I don't jump on bandwagons because someone is trying to goad me into it with "good optics."

[carpedm9587]

I agree with all of that. It's worth reinforcing that the immigrants are fleeing a hell the US helped create.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...foreign-policy

It would be good policy to increase US aid to Central America so as to promote more stable security and economic conditions to encourage potential migrants to stay in their host nations instead of making the dangerous trip to the U.S. border. Better for them and better for the USA.

I'm not a fan f arbitrarily "increasing aid." I think that has been a significant mistake in the past. Money tends to create corruption. The assistance has to take many forms, and be based on demonstrable need and some actual data.

And then I would seriously consider a model that I think was pioneered by Japan. When they give financial aid, there is often a requirement that the the money be spent on either local-resources, or Japanese goods. The first stimulates the economy within the country being aided - the second stimulates the Japanese economy. The aid is only permitted to be spent on materials/goods/personnel from a third country/party if what is needed cannot be secured from one of the first two sources. It's a common-sense requirement. But then there needs to be some form of tracking/accountability. So, instead of just handing the money outright, if the money were placed in the hands of the local U.S. embassy and used to fund grants that required approval...that might ease up on the corruption a bit.

[Bill the Cat]

Nevertheless, the Trump argument and that of his supporters that illegal immigrants are 'drug dealers, criminals, rapists" is bogus.

No it isn't. They are ALL criminals, hence the term "ILLEGAL". Now stay on your own side of the ocean, media tourist.

There's no crisis.

Why don't you move to South Texas from your ivory tower in Sydney? You have no clue what is or isn't a crisis in this country.

The stats certainly don't warrant declaring a National Emergency for his unnecessary Border Wall.

It's not unnecessary, and yes there is warrant to declare a National Emergency. It's an invasion.

The only "emergency" for Trump is the fear of losing his base.

Meme1.JPG

"The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 16 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015.

And had they not been here illegally, it would be 0%

The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 7.9 percent and 77 percent below that of native-born Americans for sex crimes and larceny, respectively. For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 50 percent below that of native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 66 percent below that of native-born Americans".

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant

It simply identifies thousands of crimes that should not have occurred and thousands of victims that should not have been victimized because the perpetrator should not be here

[Bill the Cat]

That's no argument. The point is that there's no crisis requiring the declaration of a State of Emergency, with all that entails.

That's ABSOLUTELY an argument. It's THE argument. They SHOULD NOT BE HERE!!! And you have no clue about my country and what constitutes an emergency.

[Bill the Cat]

By this argument, we should ban all immigration. After all, any victims of legal immigrants would be alive if they had not been here.

Seriously? That's where you went with that? That's the kind of claptrap that allows burglars to sue the homeowners of the homes they are robbing when they get hurt.

The difference is, legal immigrants are allowed to be here. Their mere presence is legal, just like ordinary citizens.