GA would be one of hardest hit by Border Tax...

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

I really don't all the hubbub over the article that I posted. Obviously the publisher is coming from a position of pro-immigration reform, but there's nothing particularly inflammatory about what they're asserting, except perhaps for the idea that data may be manipulated to assuage the fears of those that support immigration reform.

On the other hand, the NBC Latino article contains this headline:

"Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings, Trend Expected to Continue"

Fine, make your case like the headline says, and move on... but no. In addition, you have this:

"The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally, raising questions about the effectiveness of President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border."

"Trump's plan to build a wall had already been widely criticized, not only for its estimated cost of $21 billion, but for necessity, given the enforcement tools already in place, amongst other reasons."

"Widely criticized". By whom? And how widely? What are the numbers that support this nebulous contention? And what other reasons?

So what you really have is criticism of Trump's wall proposal, which is fine, but be honest about it and indicate that this is direction you're taking in your headline. Sloppy, agenda-driven (what passes for) journalism.

Then there's the pesky little problem of the Vox Populi.

Poll: Support for immigration reform - POLITICO

Poll: 71 percent of Fla. voters back immigration reform | Miami Herald

https://www.immigrationdirect.com/im...Fp=106400.html

Poll indicates support for immigration reform - New American Economy

You see this pic? the freakin military had to be sent to little rock to integrate school because of the town people wanted to believe so bad that integrating was negative because part of country was pumping out lies and fear mongering. just cause people believe something doesn't make it true.



pro-immigration reform

Doesn't equal anti immigration you post a link from a anti immigration group

both conservative and progressives believe in immigration reform but have completely different ideas of what that is. The question becomes how immigration reform should be handle

Forhall never said he's against immigration reform Forhall was saying the wall is a waste.

Originally Posted by Forhall

The idea of Mexicans running across the border is a boogeyman created by republicans. Most of our yearly immigrants arrive by plane and overstay their visa. The wall is a joke.

For the past few years, in fact, more Mexicans have left the US to return home than have come here illegally.

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

I really don't all the hubbub over the article that I posted. Obviously the publisher is coming from a position of pro-immigration reform, but there's nothing particularly inflammatory about what they're asserting, except perhaps for the idea that data may be manipulated to assuage the fears of those that support immigration reform.

On the other hand, the NBC Latino article contains this headline:

"Visa Overstays Outnumber Illegal Border Crossings, Trend Expected to Continue"

Fine, make your case like the headline says, and move on... but no. In addition, you have this:

"The majority of immigrants settling in the U.S. without authorization are first coming to the country legally, raising questions about the effectiveness of President Donald Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border."

"Trump's plan to build a wall had already been widely criticized, not only for its estimated cost of $21 billion, but for necessity, given the enforcement tools already in place, amongst other reasons."

"Widely criticized". By whom? And how widely? What are the numbers that support this nebulous contention? And what other reasons?

So what you really have is criticism of Trump's wall proposal, which is fine, but be honest about it and indicate that this is direction you're taking in your headline. Sloppy, agenda-driven (what passes for) journalism.

Then there's the pesky little problem of the Vox Populi.

Poll: Support for immigration reform - POLITICO

Poll: 71 percent of Fla. voters back immigration reform | Miami Herald

https://www.immigrationdirect.com/im...Fp=106400.html

Poll indicates support for immigration reform - New American Economy

I'm not sure if you are purposely trying to mislead, or if you don't understand the wall vs immigration reform. Immigration reform can mean anything, from amnesty to a halt to all immigration. Most Americans, including myself, support it because what we have now isn't really working. That is not the same thing as Trump's ridiculous, hated wall idea.

A survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 58 percent of Americans oppose new spending for the border wall, while just 28 percent support it. Along party lines, 86 percent of Democrats oppose new spending for the wall, as do 57 percent of independents.

A majority of respondents also opposes the president's proposed decrease in funding for scientific and medical research. Sixty-four percent of Americans oppose decreased spending on scientific and medical research and just 19 percent support it.

Poll: Americans oppose Trump border wall funding | TheHill

Hopefully you don't also hold the Associated Press in such low esteem.

[roadtrip75]

Originally Posted by Forhall

That data came from an anti immigration website.

Liar. The data come from Wikipedia which is citing official government reports.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by roadtrip75

Liar. The data come from Wikipedia which is citing official government reports.

No, actually, the original post was:

Originally Posted by Iconographer

I never heard such a thing. What is your source?

EDIT: Never mind, I found this:

http://www.fairus.org/issue/how-did-...-or-with-visas

Which links to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, not Wikipedia. The musings from FAIR include references to both a wikipedia article, and surveys commissioned by the government.

Here's the thing, though, the studies they're referring to to support their claim that most illegal immigrants entered illegally are from immigrants granted amnesty in 1986, or nearly 40 years ago now. By contrast, the PEW data is far more recent, and more reflective of contemporary immigration patterns. Not only that, but, to reinforce their claim, FAIR makes a massive assumption that all of the immigrants who applied for agricultural amnesty in 1986 had entered illegally, rather than by overstaying a visa.

Furthermore, FAIR was founded by a man who has stated outright that he had "come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that." A literal white-supremacist.