U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2013, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028

Advertisements

Quote:
Despite the Secretary’s rosy border security portrait, a fact she neglected to disclose is Border Patrol’s apprehension numbers rose 9 percent in 2012. While the PEW Research Center has reported illegal immigration has slowed, coinciding with the sluggish U.S. economy, another figure most reports fail to highlight is Border Patrol only apprehends 60 percent of illegal aliens crossing into America, allowing 40 percent to escape detection.

Yet the “palpable” or obvious numbers with which Napolitano wants to quibble came from a Government Accountability Report (GAO). The report also illustrated that the Obama administration has failed to evaluate Border Patrol’s security measures over the past two years, effectively, rendering any recordable metric data to determine if the border is secure unreliable.

While Secretary Napolitano meets with the law enforcement agencies with a vested interest in the “secure” border report, people “on the ground” report a different perspective.
DHS


While I would certainly like to know how they determine their 60% apprehension rate, apparently they realize a large percent are safely reaching our shores. Unless they usually notice 4 escaping while they're detaining 6, I have no idea the basis for their 60/40 ratio. Regardless, clearly our borders are not secure, and Janet Napolitano is simply following the pro-amnesty "secure borders" script.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
...While I would certainly like to know how they determine their 60% apprehension rate, apparently they realize a large percent are safely reaching our shores. Unless they usually notice 4 escaping while they're detaining 6, I have no idea the basis for their 60/40 ratio. Regardless, clearly our borders are not secure, and Janet Napolitano is simply following the pro-amnesty "secure borders" script.
Kimberly Dvorak does not source her 60% apprehension figure, and it is apparently did not originate from Pew or the GAO. I've found data based on migrant surveys showing higher success rates (lower apprehensions), but legitimate survey and poll data are not believed on this forum. The slides present some good information otherwise, so I'll provide it anyway:

Does Border Enforcement Work?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Kimberly Dvorak does not source her 60% apprehension figure, and it is apparently did not originate from Pew or the GAO. I've found data based on migrant surveys showing higher success rates (lower apprehensions), but legitimate survey and poll data are not believed on this forum. The slides present some good information otherwise, so I'll provide it anyway:

Does Border Enforcement Work?
Do you have proof the source is not GAO? If so, please share. However, I am still waiting for someone to offer a cogent explanation for their "undetected" numbers. Again, how can they use "apprehensions" to extrapolate the number or percent of illegal border crossers they failed to catch? That would be similar to an exterminator telling a customer he caught 6 mice, which indicates 4 escaped.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:06 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,287,998 times
Reputation: 6451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Do you have proof the source is not GAO? If so, please share. However, I am still waiting for someone to offer a cogent explanation for their "undetected" numbers. Again, how can they use "apprehensions" to extrapolate the number or percent of illegal border crossers they failed to catch? That would be similar to an exterminator telling a customer he caught 6 mice, which indicates 4 escaped.

You'll be waiting a lifetime for the true answers. Don't expect that from this administation, they are not about telling the truth, but manufacturing lies.

Janet, Joe, Obama, the whole lot of them, are not about the truth, they are however about twisting that truth, to suite their agendas.

And an agenda they have!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Do you have proof the source is not GAO? If so, please share. However, I am still waiting for someone to offer a cogent explanation for their "undetected" numbers. Again, how can they use "apprehensions" to extrapolate the number or percent of illegal border crossers they failed to catch? That would be similar to an exterminator telling a customer he caught 6 mice, which indicates 4 escaped.
Again, Kimberly Dvorak does not source that particular information. The burden of proof is on her. However, she hasn't been anything comparable to legitimate journalism ("The Examiner", where anyone, can report anything, strikes again) before:

"Los Zetas drug cartel seizes 2 U.S. ranches in Texas" - by Kimberly Dvorak, "Examiner", 24 July 2010


Quote:
In what could be deemed an act of war against the sovereign borders of the United States, Mexican drug cartels have seized control of at least two American ranches inside the U.S. territory near Laredo, Texas.


Quote:
Word broke late last night that Laredo police have requested help from the federal government regarding the incursion by the Los Zetas. It appears that the ranch owners have escaped without incident but their ranches remain in the hands of the blood thirsty cartels.


Why wasn't more heard about this story (other than from bikini-model Jeff Schwilk, and Dan Amato of "Digger's Realm")? Because it was totally false. But the article is still up at "Examiner".


An exterminator makes a physical survey of the residence, and in his experience, sees evidence of approximately ten mice. After he catches six mice, a second survey identifies that there would be about four mice remaining...

Census data performs the same comparison to a total population, and the segment within that population that are not in data such as legal resident numbers...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:40 PM
 
66 posts, read 53,135 times
Reputation: 21
Over the last 25 years, the apprehension rate has improved, this according to BP agents, from 1 out of 7, or even 1, out of 10, declining, with the dramatic increase in agents manning the border, to what is now thought to be somewhere around 1, out of 3. The 60% apprehension rate is almost certainly based on "the ones they know about (detect)." Of course they don't detect all of the illegals crossing.

A Government Accountability Office report earlier this month detailed some of the Border Patrol’s internal calculations about how many illegal crossers it misses, and the report said about 40 percent of would-be illegal immigrants get away. That rate has held consistent over time. Arrest numbers signal 9 percent jump in illegal immigration in 2012 - Washington Times

UNITED STATES BORDER (Source DHS/CBP)
FY -- Apprehends - BP Agents -.Apprehension Rate
1987--1,158,030-----3,181--------1 out of 7
1988----969,214-----3,766
1989----891,147-----3,783
1990--1,103,353-----3,715
1991--1,132,033-----3,635
1992--1,199,560-----4,026
1993--1,263,490-----3,965
1994--1,031,668-----4,217
1995--1,324,202-----4,786
1996--1,549,876-----5,863
1997--1,412,953-----6,817
1998--1,555,776-----7,890
1999--1,579,010-----8,259
2000--1,676,438-----9,212--------- 1 out of 6
2001--1,266,214-----9,821............................. Budget $1.15 billion
2002----955,310----10,045............................. Budget $1.42 billion
2003----931,557----10,717............................. Budget $1.52 billion
2004--1,160,395----10,819............................. Budget $1.41 billion
2005--1,189,075----11,264............................. Budget $1.52 billion
2006--1,089,902----12,349............................. Budget $2.12 billion
2007----876,704----14,923.--------- 1 out of 5... Budget $2.28 billion
2008----723,825----17,499............................. Budget $2.25 billion
2009----556,041----20,119............................. Budget $2.66 billion
2010----463,382----20,558---------- 1 out of 4... Budget $2.96 billion
2011----340,252 ---21,444.............................. Budget $3.55 billion
2012----364,768 ---21,394.............................. Budget $3.53 billion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by california-jewel View Post
You'll be waiting a lifetime for the true answers. Don't expect that from this administation, they are not about telling the truth, but manufacturing lies.

Janet, Joe, Obama, the whole lot of them, are not about the truth, they are however about twisting that truth, to suite their agendas.

And an agenda they have!
And the data was already trending that way during the Bush II presidency...

How are administration members "twisting the truth" years before they come to that position?...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,809,199 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
Again, Kimberly Dvorak does not source that particular information. The burden of proof is on her. However, she hasn't been anything comparable to legitimate journalism ("The Examiner", where anyone, can report anything, strikes again) before:

"Los Zetas drug cartel seizes 2 U.S. ranches in Texas" - by Kimberly Dvorak, "Examiner", 24 July 2010






Why wasn't more heard about this story (other than from bikini-model Jeff Schwilk, and Dan Amato of "Digger's Realm")? Because it was totally false. But the article is still up at "Examiner".


An exterminator makes a physical survey of the residence, and in his experience, sees evidence of approximately ten mice. After he catches six mice, a second survey identifies that there would be about four mice remaining...

Census data performs the same comparison to a total population, and the segment within that population that are not in data such as legal resident numbers
...
I see you aren't serious.

Also, we aren't talking about "remaining" illegals (mice). We're talking about the alleged 40% that actually got away undetected. BIG difference.

When you provide proof that GAO is not the source, I'll stand corrected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,010,077 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzm1 View Post
...A Government Accountability Office report earlier this month detailed some of the Border Patrol’s internal calculations about how many illegal crossers it misses, and the report said about 40 percent of would-be illegal immigrants get away. That rate has held consistent over time. Arrest numbers signal 9 percent jump in illegal immigration in 2012 - Washington Times...
But then the Washington Times reporter following that up by sourcing an unreliable kook like Glenn Spencer? (and even linking to what his website is named, but not the underlying GAO report):

Quote:
But Glenn Spencer, head of American Border Patrol, a private citizens group that tracks border crossings, said according to their own estimates, the Border Patrol only catches about 30 percent of illegal crossers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,395 posts, read 8,346,895 times
Reputation: 7679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
DHS


While I would certainly like to know how they determine their 60% apprehension rate, apparently they realize a large percent are safely reaching our shores. Unless they usually notice 4 escaping while they're detaining 6, I have no idea the basis for their 60/40 ratio. Regardless, clearly our borders are not secure, and Janet Napolitano is simply following the pro-amnesty "secure borders" script.
Napolitano has been eating too much neopolitan ice cream, spiked with something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top