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.
The point being is that along the border -- there aren't hordes of people crossing.
Border patrol has recorded a drastic drop in arrrests in the last two years. And a significant change in who is crossing illegally -- women and children....lots of unaccompanied children.
You can choose to ignore the facts and try to bring down Acosta....but you do little to give your argument integrity by doing so.
500k+ in FY18....that's an average of 43,000 people a month....is that not considered "hordes"?
OK, here are a couple of legitimate questions. I would really like to see some informed responses to the questions, to gauge if there really is any middleground left in the political spectrum for actual progress on these issues.
According to PEW Research, illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped every year since 2006, but shows that Central American nations people have increased. Trendlines seem to show that the problem emerged shortly after Lyndon Johnson/Richard Nixon presidencies, and continued unabated until 2006, in the middle of George W's term, when the numbers started to drop. They continued to drop until this present day. There are multiple sources for this, and all can be confirmed. Here are a couple:
1. Anybody know why Trump and the GOP are standing up for "A National Emergency" NOW, when no congress or any other president, either party, declared it earlier, when the situation was a lot worse and numbers were rising unabated?
2. Despite liberal or progressive opinions that say otherwise, there are also a significant number of studies showing that immigrants do in fact consume a much higher percentage of social programs (Welfare/SNAP, etc.) than US citizens. That fact is slightly misleading as there are fewer migrants than native Americans so the actual financial hit is smaller, but nonetheless, statistically, it is still correct.
Now the question: Since that seems to be the case, why is there (apparently) no visibility in Washington to tighten the requirements here instead of wasting money on a wall that has no statistical evidence to prove efficacy? Even during Obama's administration there were significant efforts to deport illegals, (he was criticized for it, and deportations were higher under his adminstration than Trumps) so it would seem there would be some middleground here where progress from both parties could be made without throwing the entire government workforce under the bus. Why aren't we pushing this??
Anybody want to tackle this with thoughtful introspection?
In the past we haven't had an administration that gave a damn about millions of illegals crossing our border as they were in the back pockets of the corporations that hired them and that's why they never declared a national emergency.
We now have a president who does care and these thousands marching towards our border in caravans is what prompted it along with still having thousands crossing our border every month. It was time to take a stand and say "enough is enough".
For the umpteenth time the wall is not a waste of money because it's already been proven that the good walls do work. There is plenty of statistical evidence out there including those from the Border Patrol and Homeland Security.
You're wrong about Obama's so-called high deportation numbers also. He counted those turned around at the border as deportations. He also gave millions of illegal aliens a stay of deportation along with work permits by EO. He instructed Homeland Security not to deport any illegal aliens unless they were "convicted" criminals. His deportation record was dismal.
If the Democrats refuse to negotiate with Trump then what choice does he have?
True; that's an unmentioned aspect of my question. We DO already have a wall, and it does have some good impact. Is a $25 Billion wall going to have a larger impact than restricting benefits to those coming over here illegally in the first place??
For example, if I saw a 10' wall (current), vs a 25' wall, and knew that I would still be sitting pretty financially if I found a way across either, I am not sure that the height difference would be much of an incentive to not try to find a way in....
A ladder and a piece of PVC pipe …... defeats The Wall.
As I was saying, and they would never get a handle on the top.
36" steel pipe on the top.
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.
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.
…... defeats The Wall. 
