Shutdown Over Border Security?

[carpedm9587]

You're being obtuse. Nothing is necessary. Legal is the only thing that matters in this discussion.

You're being dense. Laws can be changed.

And we can kick all citizens out too. Just takes a change of the law. Kick all citizens out and be done with the senseless carnage.

No - we can't. They cannot be sent to other countries (a little thing called sovereignty) or "back where they came from" - they come from here. And there IS constitutional prohibition against such acts, given they have citizenship. Due process, and all that. But immigration has no such constitutional protection, as far as I know. So those laws CAN be changed.

No. It is the only relevant thing. Then we owe it to ALL victims to kick EVERYONE out, since some citizens rape and kill. Again, the line is legally present and illegally present.

Now you are being silly. So here's the basic argument:

• Citizens: yes, they kill people, but they have constitutionally protected rights, so we can detain the killers, but we cannot deport citizens unless we try to change the constitution - and then there is the problem of where they are deported TO. I doubt you will find a country that is willing to take them.
• Immigrants: they have no constitutionally protected right to immigrate. We can merely change immigration law to deny ALL immigration and the senseless carnage they commit can end. And we don't have to deport them TO anywhere if we never let them in to begin with. Simple!
• Illegal Immigrants: no argument here - we should be getting them out as well - and end their senseless carnage.

I don't see any path to denying the second item on the list given that your argument for getting rid of illegal immigrants is "it doesn't matter they do less - they would do NONE if they weren't here. If we cannot face the families of these victims about illegal immigrants, why are we excusing the legal ones? Change the laws and shut it all down, and then we can end the carnage by ALL immigrants. It is the logical end-point of the "poor victim" argument.

[Sparko]

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

How would you know Tassman? You claim Trump is clueless, but you are even more so. You are not even in the country. All you know is from liberal blogs and news reports. Your 'expertise' on the matter is completely NIL. It would be like me telling you how Australia should be run.

As someone who has lived along the border (and this was 40 years ago!) the crime rate is a lot higher along the border towns and it is BECAUSE of illegal immigration and the drugs brought across the border.

And Trump never said they all were criminals and rapists, he said that such people were crossing over was a problem. And they do cross over. The MS13 gang is just one example. Google them.

[Bill the Cat]

You're being dense. Laws can be changed.

But they exist. That's the point. Legally here vs. illegally here.

No - we can't. They cannot be sent to other countries (a little thing called sovereignty) or "back where they came from" - they come from here. And there IS constitutional prohibition against such acts, given they have citizenship. Due process, and all that. But immigration has no such constitutional protection, as far as I know. So those laws CAN be changed.

EVERY law can be changed, including constitutional laws. But, again, the point remains - they are what they are, and changing them changes the nature of the objection.

Now you are being silly. So here's the basic argument:

• Citizens: yes, they kill people, but they have constitutionally protected rights, so we can detain the killers, but we cannot deport citizens unless we try to change the constitution - and then there is the problem of where they are deported TO. I doubt you will find a country that is willing to take them.
• Immigrants: they have no constitutionally protected right to immigrate. We can merely change immigration law to deny ALL immigration and the senseless carnage they commit can end. And we don't have to deport them TO anywhere if we never let them in to begin with. Simple!
• Illegal Immigrants: no argument here - we should be getting them out as well - and end their senseless carnage.

Doing backflips to liken legal and illegal immigration won't cut it. You're still needing to change the law to stop legal immigrants from coming here legally. Nothing legally needs to be changed to stop illegal immigrants from coming here illegally. The law already says they should not be here. Were they not here illegally, they could not commit the additional crimes.

Let's say some guy breaks in your house. Will you care WHY they are breaking in, or will you just hope they don't do anything worse and offer them a cup of tea? Or do you naturally assume that they are already in your house illegally that they are probably going to do worse? Would they be able to do worse if they were never allowed to break in?

Now, let's also say you invite someone in your house. Do you expect them to do something worse since you invited them in? Or, since some visitors MAY abuse your hospitality, do you just not invite anyone?

I don't see any path to denying the second item on the list given that your argument for getting rid of illegal immigrants is "it doesn't matter they do less - they would do NONE if they weren't here.

Because you are conflating legal and illegal entry.

If we cannot face the families of these victims about illegal immigrants, why are we excusing the legal ones?

Because they have a legal right to be here once they are granted legal immigration status.

Change the laws and shut it all down, and then we can end the carnage by ALL immigrants. It is the logical end-point of the "poor victim" argument.

Sorry, but your logic doesn't follow. Changing someone's legal status to illegally present can encompass everyone not indigenous to this continent. One category of "changing the law" can not be logically separated from another, no matter how much more difficult the processes are. The fact remains that your "change the law" has a mechanism in place to encompass every non-indigenous US citizen.

[Sparko]

I posted this earlier, but people might have missed it. It is a great resource.

It is an interactive map of the border walls as they exist now, including video flyovers of each section.

While there are some gaps in the west, you can see that most of California, Arizona and New Mexico already have border walls in some form or another (a lot of vehicle barrier). Texas is the only state with a large gap of nothing.

https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall...ve-border-map/

[carpedm9587]

But they exist. That's the point. Legally here vs. illegally here.

EVERY law can be changed, including constitutional laws. But, again, the point remains - they are what they are, and changing them changes the nature of the objection.

Doing backflips to liken legal and illegal immigration won't cut it. You're still needing to change the law to stop legal immigrants from coming here legally. Nothing legally needs to be changed to stop illegal immigrants from coming here illegally. The law already says they should not be here. Were they not here illegally, they could not commit the additional crimes.

Let's say some guy breaks in your house. Will you care WHY they are breaking in, or will you just hope they don't do anything worse and offer them a cup of tea? Or do you naturally assume that they are already in your house illegally that they are probably going to do worse? Would they be able to do worse if they were never allowed to break in?

Now, let's also say you invite someone in your house. Do you expect them to do something worse since you invited them in? Or, since some visitors MAY abuse your hospitality, do you just not invite anyone?

Because you are conflating legal and illegal entry.

Because they have a legal right to be here once they are granted legal immigration status.

Sorry, but your logic doesn't follow. Changing someone's legal status to illegally present can encompass everyone not indigenous to this continent. One category of "changing the law" can not be logically separated from another, no matter how much more difficult the processes are. The fact remains that your "change the law" has a mechanism in place to encompass every non-indigenous US citizen.

So I've been through this - and I'm somewhat weary of "devil's advocate" position. Your responses are flawed on multiple levels, but the most profound one is that you ignore a little thing called the constitution. You cannot change laws to deport all citizens of the U.S. - they have a constitution right as citizens to be here. Any such law change will be tossed out as unconstitutional. But no immigrant has "the right to immigrate." It is not protected by the constitution.

My point was not to conflate illegal and legal immigration - and I never did so. My point was the "illegal immigrants commit crimes" does not hold water as an argument for getting them out - because it takes with it legal immigrants as well. The fact is - people sometimes do bad things. Life happens. We have enough reasons to control illegal immigration - we don't need to make them up. And the level of crime does not warrant an "emergency" declaration. The rates of illegal immigration are at historic lows for the last 40 years (thought not, as you noted, at the lowest in that window). There are proposals on the table for beefing up border security further. That they do not include "Trump's Wall" is a non-issue for me. Trump is firing up his base and getting them into a lather (as you apparently are) and some of us are just not jumping on that bandwagon.

I would hope that the Dems would look at the CBP evidence and proposals and factor that into the overall security proposal. No department gets everything they want - so CBP may not get everything they want either. I don't think we have a "major security problem" if they don't. I think Trump has a major political problem if he doesn't get his wall - but that's his problem. He created the energy in his base - he'll have to deal if he doesn't get his pet project.

[carpedm9587]

I posted this earlier, but people might have missed it. It is a great resource.

It is an interactive map of the border walls as they exist now, including video flyovers of each section.

While there are some gaps in the west, you can see that most of California, Arizona and New Mexico already have border walls in some form or another (a lot of vehicle barrier). Texas is the only state with a large gap of nothing.

https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall...ve-border-map/

The later may have something to do with a little thing called the Rio Grande.

[Bill the Cat]

So I've been through this - and I'm somewhat weary of "devil's advocate" position. Your responses are flawed on multiple levels,

Yeah, no they aren't.

but the most profound one is that you ignore a little thing called the constitution. You cannot change laws to deport all citizens of the U.S. - they have a constitution right as citizens to be here. Any such law change will be tossed out as unconstitutional.

Unless an amendment was passed. And there IS a mechanism in place for that to happen, thus making it possible.

But no immigrant has "the right to immigrate." It is not protected by the constitution.

But the law states they do have the right to immigrate if they apply and are approved.

My point was not to conflate illegal and legal immigration - and I never did so.

Yes you did.

My point was the "illegal immigrants commit crimes" does not hold water as an argument for getting them out - because it takes with it legal immigrants as well.

No it doesn't.

The fact is - people sometimes do bad things. Life happens. We have enough reasons to control illegal immigration - we don't need to make them up.

Not making it up. NO illegal should be here. Period.

And the level of crime does not warrant an "emergency" declaration.

Yes it does, since Congress refuses to do anything about them.

The rates of illegal immigration are at historic lows for the last 40 years (thought not, as you noted, at the lowest in that window). There are proposals on the table for beefing up border security further. That they do not include "Trump's Wall" is a non-issue for me. Trump is firing up his base and getting them into a lather (as you apparently are) and some of us are just not jumping on that bandwagon.

Then you have no clue how real security works. You can claim you do, but your explanation above shows you don't.

I would hope that the Dems would look at the CBP evidence and proposals and factor that into the overall security proposal. No department gets everything they want - so CBP may not get everything they want either. I don't think we have a "major security problem" if they don't.

There's the problem. Border Patrol and local sheriffs agree that it is a major problem.

I think Trump has a major political problem if he doesn't get his wall - but that's his problem. He created the energy in his base - he'll have to deal if he doesn't get his pet project.

You can bank on that. He'll get the money.

[Bill the Cat]

The later may have something to do with a little thing called the Rio Grande.

[Littlejoe]

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?

As Bill has repeatedly cited, Trump is not asking for 700 - 900 MORE miles of wall...at least that's no longer his request AFAICT...and what do you mean the Southern Border is only 1/4 of the total US Border. Why in the world would that matter? We are discussing the Southern border, so fencing with a high strong fence is pertinent. Why do you think our border with 2 Oceans would factor into the conversation?


Second, no, I'm not comparing apples to oranges, that's simply your opinion. I disagree. The CONCEPT is the same, regardless of size.

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.
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."

Yes, you keep saying that, but, there ARE multiple examples of the data. I posted an article in the other thread where we were discussing this that apparently was ignored, at least I never saw anyone comment on it.


https://carter.house.gov/uploads/Bro...ken-Border.pdf


How many points do you need Carpe for you to admit there's a problem here bordering on emergency status? 1? 5? 1000? What does it take? whatever the number, I bet with a little google-fu I can find it. J/S

[Sparko]

The later may have something to do with a little thing called the Rio Grande.

If you have been to El Paso, you know the Rio Grande is not very Grand. It is non-existent through much of the year. And down where it does become a river, they seem to have the wall.

[carpedm9587]

As Bill has repeatedly cited, Trump is not asking for 700 - 900 MORE miles of wall...at least that's no longer his request AFAICT...and what do you mean the Southern Border is only 1/4 of the total US Border. Why in the world would that matter?

Because you're trying to equate a rich person putting a wall around his entire estate with a wall along 1/8th to 1/12th of the U.S. border. Apples and oranges. Smaller space, and "all" compared to "part." If a rich person suggested putting a wall around 1/8th of his/her estate, I suspect most of us would say, "Ummm... don't you think they'll just go around?"

We are discussing the Southern border, so fencing with a high strong fence is pertinent. Why do you think our border with 2 Oceans would factor into the conversation?

Because if people want to get in - they will get in: over, around, under... it may slow to some degree, but then there is the issue of "is this the best way" and "is the cost worth the result?" I have not seen a cost/benefit analysis of ANY of this or ANY of the alternatives. And most of the things he says it will solve it simply won't solve. It's just - "build that wall, build that wall, build that wall, build that wall....etc. etc. etc."

Second, no, I'm not comparing apples to oranges, that's simply your opinion. I disagree. The CONCEPT is the same, regardless of size.

Then we disagree - and your "rich person wall" comparison won't do much to convince me.

Yes, you keep saying that, but, there ARE multiple examples of the data. I posted an article in the other thread where we were discussing this that apparently was ignored, at least I never saw anyone comment on it.

https://carter.house.gov/uploads/Bro...ken-Border.pdf

Didn't see it. Don't have time to read a 44 page document now - but I'll add it to the pile.

How many points do you need Carpe for you to admit there's a problem here bordering on emergency status? 1? 5? 1000? What does it take? whatever the number, I bet with a little google-fu I can find it. J/S

Points? I have no idea what "points" you're referring to. The information I have that makes me think there is no basis for "emergency" is simple: illegal immigration peaked twice (mid 1980s and around 2000), at over 1.6M captures per year. Today we are down to about half a million with MORE border protection than we had at either of those points. That last part is important because more security means a significant probability that a higher percentage of people trying to get through are being caught, which means the rate of actual illegal incursion was probably WAY above 1.6M per year in those two periods. Indeed, the estimates are illegal immigration has dropped 82% since its peak.

The last six presidents saw no need to declare a "national emergency" as far as I know, and when the situation was far worse. So why would I think there is one now? Additional enhancements to border security can reduce it further - and if we work on the root cause, we can push it even further down than that. Eventually, we will reach a point where we will say "good enough." That point will not be "zero."

What I see happening is a candidate made a campaign promise because it rallied his base. Now they are facing opposition to this promise because there are a lot of people in the U.S. (most of us) who simply don't agree with him (or you). But Trump has driven his base to such a fever pitch - he HAS to deliver the wall or they will turn on him. And without his base - he's politically dead. Frankly, he's probably politically dead even with them because he has alienated so much of the rest of the country. But if his base turns on him? He's toast. So he's going to push the wall to the max - not because we actually need it - but because he is in a corner he painted himself into - and he has no way out.

[Littlejoe]

Because you're trying to equate a rich person putting a wall around his entire estate with a wall along 1/8th to 1/12th of the U.S. border. Apples and oranges. Smaller space, and "all" compared to "part." If a rich person suggested putting a wall around 1/8th of his/her estate, I suspect most of us would say, "Ummm... don't you think they'll just go around?"

Which is what they are doing now, going around where there's no fence/wall. There needs to be enough to where a border patrol can control it effectively. That would also be the case if someone walled a portion of their estate. If someone was cutting across their property from a high traffic area, then a fence across enough space would deter them. This happens all the time. My daughter used to be able to walk to a path that led to the Train station when she was in college. It was a 5 minute walk using the path. But, to access that path, she had to cross someones property for a very short walk. ( less than 100 ft.) They put up a 6 ft board fence across it blocking all access. The walk to the station without that shortcut was 25 minute walk down a dangerous interstate highway making it far too dangerous and lengthy to be any use to her any longer. She was forced to get a car because of a short fence.

Because if people want to get in - they will get in: over, around, under... it may slow to some degree, but then there is the issue of "is this the best way" and "is the cost worth the result?" I have not seen a cost/benefit analysis of ANY of this or ANY of the alternatives. And most of the things he says it will solve it simply won't solve. It's just - "build that wall, build that wall, build that wall, build that wall....etc. etc. etc."

so you recommend everyone do like you do and leave their doors unlocked, vehicles unlocked, don't buy a home security system, or a dog, don't arm your car alarm? Because hey, if they want in, they'll get in!

Another ancedotal point for you to dismiss, I accidentally left my front door unlocked one night, I was awakened by my daughter (a baby at the time) crying. It was then that I realized that someone had quietly walked into the house and stolen a bunch of stuff from my house and walked away with it. Including a deer rifle that I had spent several weeks earning by helping a buddy roof his house, in Texas, in July....yeah, I don't ever leave my doors unlocked any longer.

Then we disagree - and your "rich person wall" comparison won't do much to convince me.

Yes we disagree and your dismissal does nothing to convince me...

Didn't see it. Don't have time to read a 44 page document now - but I'll add it to the pile.

And that's just one report, there are several more I could link to.

Points? I have no idea what "points" you're referring to.

DATA points which I believe were your words...

The information I have that makes me think there is no basis for "emergency" is simple: illegal immigration peaked twice (mid 1980s and around 2000), at over 1.6M captures per year. Today we are down to about half a million with MORE border protection than we had at either of those points. That last part is important because more security means a significant probability that a higher percentage of people trying to get through are being caught, which means the rate of actual illegal incursion was probably WAY above 1.6M per year in those two periods. Indeed, the estimates are illegal immigration has dropped 82% since its peak.

how many murders and how many kilo's of drugs, how many rapes and how many thefts does it take to constitute an emergency? That's the question we're all asking of your side. You've visited the areas and don't see a problem, we live it. It reminds of the old cliche about being involved versus being committed: Concerning breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

The last six presidents saw no need to declare a "national emergency" as far as I know, and when the situation was far worse. So why would I think there is one now? Additional enhancements to border security can reduce it further - and if we work on the root cause, we can push it even further down than that. Eventually, we will reach a point where we will say "good enough." That point will not be "zero."

whataboutism.

What I see happening is a candidate made a campaign promise because it rallied his base. Now they are facing opposition to this promise because there are a lot of people in the U.S. (most of us) who simply don't agree with him (or you). But Trump has driven his base to such a fever pitch - he HAS to deliver the wall or they will turn on him. And without his base - he's politically dead. Frankly, he's probably politically dead even with them because he has alienated so much of the rest of the country. But if his base turns on him? He's toast. So he's going to push the wall to the max - not because we actually need it - but because he is in a corner he painted himself into - and he has no way out.

He made a promise that resonated with those directly affected among others, that we want him to do all he can to honor it doesn't diminish it's veracity.

[carpedm9587]

Which is what they are doing now, going around where there's no fence/wall.

So you think adding a bit more fencing is going to change this?

There needs to be enough to where a border patrol can control it effectively. That would also be the case if someone walled a portion of their estate. If someone was cutting across their property from a high traffic area, then a fence across enough space would deter them. This happens all the time. My daughter used to be able to walk to a path that led to the Train station when she was in college. It was a 5 minute walk using the path. But, to access that path, she had to cross someones property for a very short walk. ( less than 100 ft.) They put up a 6 ft board fence across it block all access. The walk to the station without that shortcut was 25 minute walk down a dangerous interstate highway making it far to dangerous and lengthy to be any use to her any longer. She was forced to get a car because of a short fence.

I have no had an argument against "strategic fencing." And BTC provided a link to a request from CBP that seemed perfectly reasonable. My objection has always been about Trumps 700-900 miles of concrete wall." I am not a big believer in expensive, meaningless optics.

so you recommend everyone do like you do and leave their doors unlocked, vehicles unlocked, don't buy a home security system, or a dog, don't arm your car alarm? Because hey, if they want in, they'll get in!

I said nothing of the sort. I live how I live because I choose to do so. I have repeatedly said illegal immigration needs to be curbed and the border needs to be secured. We disagree on how to best secure it - nothing more.

Another ancedotal point for you to dismiss, I accidentally left my front door unlocked one night, I was woken by my daughter (a baby at the time) crying. It was then that I realized that someone had quietly walked into the house and stolen a bunch of stuff from my house and walked away with it. Including a deer rifle that I had spent several weeks earning by helping a buddy roof his house, in Texas, in July....yeah, I don't ever leave my doors unlocked any longer.

That is your choice. You have every right to make it. It's not how I want to live.

Yes we disagree and your dismissal does nothing to convince me...

I'm actually not trying to convince you of anything, LJ - I am merely explaining why I am not convinced by your arguments. You are free to think what you wish.

And that's just one report, there are several more I could link to.

DATA points which I believe were your words...

LJ - giving you an arbitrary number of "data points that would be convincing" is a meaningless exercise. I look at the data - it if convinces, it convinces. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

how many murders and how many kilo's of drugs, how many rapes and how many thefts does it take to constitute an emergency?

I don't have a number for you, LJ. I have the observations I offered you - and you can refer to my response to BTC about the meaningfulness of using "number of victims" as an argument for this.

That's the question we're all asking of your side.

My side? I have the distinct impression you have no idea what "my side" is. I suspect you are taking the arguments of Pelosi and others on the far left and painting me with the same brush. If I'm right about that - you're off base.

You've visited the areas and don't see a problem, we live it. It reminds of the old cliche about being involved versus being committed: Concerning breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

I am aware I do not live it. That doesn't mean I cannot have an informed opinion. If the only people who can have an informed opinion are people who've actually lived it - the entire counseling and judicial system will have to be tossed out.

whataboutism.

Umm no - and if you think it is, then you don't understand what "whataboutism" actually means.

He made a promise that resonated with those directly affected among others, that we want him to do all he can to honor it doesn't diminish it's veracity.

As you wish, LJ. There are a lot of us who don't agree with you, including people who live on the border.

[Tassman]

How would you know Tassman? You claim Trump is clueless, but you are even more so. You are not even in the country. All you know is from liberal blogs and news reports. Your 'expertise' on the matter is completely NIL.

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

As someone who has lived along the border (and this was 40 years ago!) the crime rate is a lot higher along the border towns and it is BECAUSE of illegal immigration and the drugs brought across the border.

https://www.politifact.com/new-york/...ts-entry-lowe/

And Trump never said they all were criminals and rapists, he said that such people were crossing over was a problem. And they do cross over. The MS13 gang is just one example.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/desp...rn-border.html

[Tassman]

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.

Well youhttp://fortune.com/2018/12/12/trump-border-wall-poll/

It's only the relatively small Trump base that think it's important. The only "emergency" is Trump's fear of alienating his base.