Now I really want to know, what exactly is going on within the US-Mexico border?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:
Why do rapists and murderers only matter when they're brown

If they're any other color we elect them to public office and give them sitcoms

We must have a lot of sitcoms coming down the pipeline for the tens of thousands we arrest every year.

I don't suppose you have hard data about these tens of thousands of rapist arrests

undeadsuitor:

I don't suppose you have hard data about these tens of thousands of rapist arrests

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-30

2017 arrest data: 18,279 people arrested for rape.

Edit:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43

12,187 were white.

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:

I don't suppose you have hard data about these tens of thousands of rapist arrests

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-30

2017 arrest date: 18,279 people arrested for rape.

So tens of thousands...if you round up. If that's not a "well, actually" then nothing is.

But thankfully, not all of them have been given sitcoms, so it's...okay, I guess? I'm not even sure what the point of bringing this up was except to filibuster the fact that we are very concerned when the rapist is brown, and very quick to rationalise when the rapist is white.

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:

I don't suppose you have hard data about these tens of thousands of rapist arrests

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-30

2017 arrest data: 18,279 people arrested for rape.

Edit:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43

12,187 were white.

Is the first table immigrants? It's not labeled

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:

I don't suppose you have hard data about these tens of thousands of rapist arrests

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-30

2017 arrest data: 18,279 people arrested for rape.

Edit:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43

12,187 were white.

Easy point: you do know non-hispanic white people only make up about 60% of the US population, right?

undeadsuitor:

Is the first table immigrants? It's not labeled

No, it's everyone. It's not a table about immigrants. It's a table about all the criminals in America that get arrested. You suggested we only punish "brown" criminals and reward "other color" criminals with political positions and sitcoms.

And as it turns out, there's a lot of people who aren't immigrants who commit those crimes and are arrested for them as well.

Something Amyss:

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:

I don't suppose you have hard data about these tens of thousands of rapist arrests

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-30

2017 arrest date: 18,279 people arrested for rape.

So tens of thousands...if you round up. If that's not a "well, actually" then nothing is.

But thankfully, not all of them have been given sitcoms, so it's...okay, I guess? I'm not even sure what the point of bringing this up was except to filibuster the fact that we are very concerned when the rapist is brown, and very quick to rationalise when the rapist is white.

If you want to continue the technically correct game, my "rapists and murderers" included both rapists and murderers, which add to more than 20,000, so you don't need to worry about rounding up. Also, that's one year.

Point being, apparently our culture intent on rationalizing white rapists failed 12,000 times in 2017. I'm sure you can think of like, 5 examples that go against that.

Alright then. What are we doing to stop rape then?

Build a wall around frat houses? Because arresting people after they commit crime isn't enough to stop brown rapists. What preemptive measures are we taking to stop local rapists?

undeadsuitor:
Alright then. What are we doing to stop rape then?

Build a wall around frat houses? Because arresting people after they commit crime isn't enough to stop brown rapists. What preemptive measures are we taking to stop local rapists?

I mean, goodle says this: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/rpe/index.html

We could go back and forth on this all day and night, the suggestion that people don't take crime seriously except by immigrants is silly. I'm sure in a different context, you'd complain about the controversially high incarceration rates in the US, and it isn't immigrants filling most of those prisons. There very much are walls around them.

And you're slipping around the problem here. It's not that the people crossing are exceptionally violent, it's not a wall to keep out people because we expect them to be rapists in the future. There are a significant number of people among those who cross illegally who are already criminals, who committed serious crimes already in their life, and would be denied entry to the country if they tried to enter the US legitimately, and we clearly currently lack the ability to stop them just sneaking past.

Deporting people who come in and commit crimes while having no way to stop them from returning is like arresting criminals and throwing them into a prison with an open door.

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:
Alright then. What are we doing to stop rape then?

Build a wall around frat houses? Because arresting people after they commit crime isn't enough to stop brown rapists. What preemptive measures are we taking to stop local rapists?

I mean, goodle says this: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/rpe/index.html

We could go back and forth on this all day and night, the suggestion that people don't take crime seriously except by immigrants is silly. I'm sure in a different context, you'd complain about the controversially high incarceration rates in the US, and it isn't immigrants filling most of those prisons. There very much are walls around them.

And you're slipping around the problem here. It's not that the people crossing are exceptionally violent, it's not a wall to keep out people because we expect them to be rapists in the future. There are a significant number of people among those who cross illegally who are already criminals, who committed serious crimes already in their life, and would be denied entry to the country if they tried to enter the US legitimately, and we clearly currently lack the ability to stop them just sneaking past.

Deporting people who come in and commit crimes while having no way to stop them from returning is like arresting criminals and throwing them into a prison with an open door.

Or

Or

We could overhaul our asylum and immigration system to provide citizenship to these people so when they commit a crime they go to jail like everyone else

I know it's crazy but it's just crazy enough to work

undeadsuitor:

Or

We could overhaul our asylum and immigration system to provide citizenship to these people so when they commit a crime they go to jail like everyone else

I know it's crazy but it's just crazy enough to work

And then we'd have fuller prisons and we'd only have to worry about the people who committed crimes in other countries and then snuck across the border. Or we could secure the border.

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:

Or

We could overhaul our asylum and immigration system to provide citizenship to these people so when they commit a crime they go to jail like everyone else

I know it's crazy but it's just crazy enough to work

And then we'd have fuller prisons and we'd only have to worry about the people who committed crimes in other countries and then snuck across the border. Or we could secure the border.

Im assuming the first thing a country would do would be trying to figure out if an Asylum Seeker is a criminal. It's part of the process.

I'm all for secure borders. The wall just happens to do little to increse that security

Also, Id prefer criminals to be locked up in my jails instead of running around in another country creating gangs, destorying lives, corrupting polticians and creating the need to seek refuge. It would be an insurance policy against future issues.

trunkage:

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:

Or

We could overhaul our asylum and immigration system to provide citizenship to these people so when they commit a crime they go to jail like everyone else

I know it's crazy but it's just crazy enough to work

And then we'd have fuller prisons and we'd only have to worry about the people who committed crimes in other countries and then snuck across the border. Or we could secure the border.

Im assuming the first thing a country would do would be trying to figure out if an Asylum Seeker is a criminal. It's part of the process.

I'm all for secure borders. The wall just happens to do little to increse that security

Also, Id prefer criminals to be locked up in my jails

Are American jails public or private sector? If the former how much does it cost to jail one inmate?

Genuinely curious.

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:

Or

We could overhaul our asylum and immigration system to provide citizenship to these people so when they commit a crime they go to jail like everyone else

I know it's crazy but it's just crazy enough to work

And then we'd have fuller prisons and we'd only have to worry about the people who committed crimes in other countries and then snuck across the border. Or we could secure the border.

Immigration is a problem, but so is the US prison system. But we should, ya know, fix that too. We should fix all the problems instead of just going 'fixing things is hard, so lets not'.

trunkage:

Im assuming the first thing a country would do would be trying to figure out if an Asylum Seeker is a criminal. It's part of the process.

I'm all for secure borders. The wall just happens to do little to increase that security

Yes, they do screen asylum seekers to find out of they're criminals. But they can only do that because asylum seekers submit themselves to customs and border patrol. The people with criminal histories mostly* aren't doing that, they're sneaking across the border and hoping not to get caught.

*At the height of the child separation controversy, I heard a story on the radio about a woman who was detained and separated from her kids even though she submitted herself at the border, and they went on about the illegality of that detainment for 10 minutes before letting me know she had previously jumped the border illegally on her own and been deported and that's why they detained her as a flight risk until they fully processed her asylum claim, and I'm like "well that's burying the lead, now isn't it?"

Saelune:
Immigration is a problem, but so is the US prison system. But we should, ya know, fix that too. We should fix all the problems instead of just going 'fixing things is hard, so lets not'.

That's what I'm saying! Securing the border is hard, let's do it anyway!

tstorm823:

Saelune:
Immigration is a problem, but so is the US prison system. But we should, ya know, fix that too. We should fix all the problems instead of just going 'fixing things is hard, so lets not'.

That's what I'm saying! Securing the border is hard, let's do it anyway!

Fixing the Immigration problem and 'securing the border' are not the same thing.

The first step to fixing the immigration problem is one Republicans refuse to do, and that is view these people as people wanting a better life. Instead they view them as rapists and thugs who are out to lazily steal everyone's job that they don't want to do to begin with.

tstorm823:

undeadsuitor:

Or

We could overhaul our asylum and immigration system to provide citizenship to these people so when they commit a crime they go to jail like everyone else

I know it's crazy but it's just crazy enough to work

And then we'd have fuller prisons and we'd only have to worry about the people who committed crimes in other countries and then snuck across the border. Or we could secure the border.

Unfortunately, securing the border is a lot harder than saying the words securing the border.

Like...is it going to be tall enough to stop planes from flying over? cause like 40% of illegal immigration is from people who came over by air and overstayed their visas.

unless the wall is tall enough to stop planes it's worthless

tstorm823:

If you want to continue the technically correct game,

I'm not interested in "technically correct".

I'm interested in you being honest. This, sadly, will never happen.

Like when you used findings on legal and illegal immigration's effects on labour to countermand illegal immigration's threat.

tstorm823:

trunkage:

Im assuming the first thing a country would do would be trying to figure out if an Asylum Seeker is a criminal. It's part of the process.

I'm all for secure borders. The wall just happens to do little to increase that security

Yes, they do screen asylum seekers to find out of they're criminals. But they can only do that because asylum seekers submit themselves to customs and border patrol. The people with criminal histories mostly* aren't doing that, they're sneaking across the border and hoping not to get caught.

*That's what I'm saying! Securing the border is hard, let's do it anyway!

So what steps exactly would you take to 'secure the border' then? Big wall like Trump says? Whats stopping the criminals just climbing over/tunnelling under it? You think they're going to politely submit to an official crossing point just because you planted a big old chunk of concrete in their way? And what if they're not coming via Trump's wall? There are these things called planes and boats, they make it real easy to circumvent land based walls

Something Amyss:

Like when you used findings on legal and illegal immigration's effects on labour to countermand illegal immigration's threat.

Consider the consequences of the argument you're making. If the argument made by Trump is that illegal immigration pulls down wages and draws from our social services, and NPR's fact check says "yes, immigration pulls down wages and depletes our social services", and your complaint is the fact check talks about all immigration and not illegal immigration specifically, the implication you're making is that legal immigration is the problem. If you're not trying to make that argument, you should rethink your complaint.

Palindromemordnilap:

So what steps exactly would you take to 'secure the border' then? Big wall like Trump says? Whats stopping the criminals just climbing over/tunnelling under it? You think they're going to politely submit to an official crossing point just because you planted a big old chunk of concrete in their way? And what if they're not coming via Trump's wall? There are these things called planes and boats, they make it real easy to circumvent land based walls

Yes, a wall in places would help. And we have patrol and security measures well beyond that, it's much easier to catch someone tunneling or climbing a wall than it is to catch them just walking across. Walls and fences do that everywhere, they discourage people, and they help get people caught when they trespass anyway. Commercial plane travel involves security and passports. Air and sea traffic is much easier to monitor remotely than an individual walking on land. These are all parts of a concerted effort stop illegal traffic.

Like, you can't just fly planes around undetected. They make outrageously fast and expensive military aircraft to be stealthy exactly because planes aren't stealthy. Boats aren't much stealthier. 90% of narcotics in the US enter through the southern border, and it's not cause they're made in Mexico. The coast guard has patrols well south of the US coast because the drugs are often boated up to Mexico, brought onto land there, and then cross the border on land, because trying to dock your drug shipments on the US coast is begging to be caught. Yes, I know most of that happens at regular border crossings, but boats and planes aren't how criminals get into the US. They might be how visa overstays get into the US, but those people at least qualified for a visa. People with criminal records or gang membership sneak across the border on land, so we need to enact the policies that get in their way, and that's going to include some wall.

tstorm823:
Yes, a wall in places would help. And we have patrol and security measures well beyond that, it's much easier to catch someone tunneling or climbing a wall than it is to catch them just walking across. Walls and fences do that everywhere, they discourage people, and they help get people caught when they trespass anyway. Commercial plane travel involves security and passports. Air and sea traffic is much easier to monitor remotely than an individual walking on land. These are all parts of a concerted effort stop illegal traffic.

I mean the wall doesn't seem to have helped so far. Doesn't seem to have made catching anyone, tunnelling, climbing or otherwise, any easier. And I feel the need to point out that even your own argument right here in this quote relies far more on there being patrols and observation rather than a wall. So why not pay for that instead? Feels like drones as scouts would be a more useful thing to spend money on, not a wall that doesn't do the job you want it to

tstorm823:
Like, you can't just fly planes around undetected. They make outrageously fast and expensive military aircraft to be stealthy exactly because planes aren't stealthy. Boats aren't much stealthier. 90% of narcotics in the US enter through the southern border, and it's not cause they're made in Mexico. The coast guard has patrols well south of the US coast because the drugs are often boated up to Mexico, brought onto land there, and then cross the border on land, because trying to dock your drug shipments on the US coast is begging to be caught. Yes, I know most of that happens at regular border crossings, but boats and planes aren't how criminals get into the US. They might be how visa overstays get into the US, but those people at least qualified for a visa. People with criminal records or gang membership sneak across the border on land, so we need to enact the policies that get in their way, and that's going to include some wall.

Ah ah ah tstorm, you said secure borders, you didn't say the Mexico border. As undeadsuitor has already pointed out most of your illegal immigration is from people simply overstaying visas, and they're not solely coming from down south. So how are you going to fix that problem? How are you going to make sure all your borders are secure not just the one that funnily enough separates you from the brown people?

tstorm823:

Consider the consequences of the argument you're making. If the argument made by Trump is that illegal immigration pulls down wages and draws from our social services, and NPR's fact check says "yes, immigration pulls down wages and depletes our social services", and your complaint is the fact check talks about all immigration and not illegal immigration specifically, the implication you're making is that legal immigration is the problem. If you're not trying to make that argument, you should rethink your complaint.

I'm beginning to think this isn't an honesty issue and rather a failure to think critically.

I was not making an affirmative claim, I am rejecting your evidence because it doesn't meet the burden. If the options are A and B and I say I don't believe your evidence for A, it doesn't mean B is inherently true. You made a case that illegal immigration drove low wages by using a source that counts legal and illegal immigration as a counter. Trump wants legal; immigration, and said so in the same speech, something you claim to have been aware of (which still makes this dishonest). There are multiple possible options here, including but not limited to: NPR cold be wrong. Even reliable sources are wrong on occasion. Legal immigration could be the problem. Illegal immigration could be the problem, though you still haven't made the case for it. Both could be the problem.

There is data to suggest that legal immigration drives down wages. Is it true? I don't know. I'm not making the case. You chose to argue with faulty evidence, and I called it out. I'm not saying any group of immigrants drives down wages. That doesn't mean they're not, that just means you've failed to make the case in terms of illegal immigration. And to do so, you highlighted the dishonesty of Trump's claims better than I could.

Thank you for that, at least.

Palindromemordnilap:

I mean the wall doesn't seem to have helped so far. Doesn't seem to have made catching anyone, tunnelling, climbing or otherwise, any easier. And I feel the need to point out that even your own argument right here in this quote relies far more on there being patrols and observation rather than a wall. So why not pay for that instead? Feels like drones as scouts would be a more useful thing to spend money on, not a wall that doesn't do the job you want it to

We do have those things. We do fund those things. They just aren't controversial. Just U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, not counting any other efforts at border security, we spend 2-3 times that $5 billion dollar wall request annually. We put an immense amount of effort and resources into non-barrier border security, and every time I've ever heard border patrol comment on the wall, they've basically said "yeah, our jobs would be easier with a wall. Like, duh."

Ah ah ah tstorm, you said secure borders, you didn't say the Mexico border. As undeadsuitor has already pointed out most of your illegal immigration is from people simply overstaying visas, and they're not solely coming from down south. So how are you going to fix that problem? How are you going to make sure all your borders are secure not just the one that funnily enough separates you from the brown people?

We're not, and I'm personally not sure overstayed visas is ever really a problem. Also, overstayed visas isn't what people mean by illegal immigration, that's a civil offense, not a criminal one. Being in the country undocumented isn't the crime, jumping the border is the crime. Now let's stop the crime. We can worry about whether the visa system is broken and causing problems as well, but that doesn't change the nature of the crime we know is happening. Overstayed visas qualified for visas, so to our knowledge, they aren't gang members or felons. Residing in the US doesn't enable someone to do something like drug trafficking, moving internationally undetected does. 90% of narcotics entering the US do so across that border. Something like 30% of all human traffic victims that enter the US do so crossing that border. if stopping those things isn't noble enough to warrant the effort of securing the border, I don't know what's enough for you.

It's not about race.

Something Amyss:

I was not making an affirmative claim,

"Brown people are scary, and while most of the problems being cited are neither immigrant-specific nor immigrant-majority issues, a scapegoat works best if you don't like the people involved."

I am rejecting your evidence because it doesn't meet the burden.

The arbitrary burden of you disagreeing.

If the options are A and B and I say I don't believe your evidence for A, it doesn't mean B is inherently true. You made a case that illegal immigration drove low wages by using a source that counts legal and illegal immigration as a counter. Trump wants legal; immigration, and said so in the same speech, something you claim to have been aware of (which still makes this dishonest). There are multiple possible options here, including but not limited to: NPR cold be wrong. Even reliable sources are wrong on occasion. Legal immigration could be the problem. Illegal immigration could be the problem, though you still haven't made the case for it. Both could be the problem.

I'm gonna go on record and say that you are the problem. You're worried about honesty, you're not worried about truth. If you're dissatisfied with a statement or source, then don't believe it. That's fine, but it doesn't justify a response. If your response to me is "well, based on your source, I'm not obligated to believe that" that's not a contradiction! It's not a discussion if you bring nothing to it. You imagine I have the burden to prove to you everything I say, but on the flip side, you believe that everything you say stands unless precisely disproven. That's not an unreasonable personal standard, but it is completely unreasonable standard of discussion.

There is data to suggest that legal immigration drives down wages. Is it true? I don't know. I'm not making the case. You chose to argue with faulty evidence, and I called it out. I'm not saying any group of immigrants drives down wages. That doesn't mean they're not, that just means you've failed to make the case in terms of illegal immigration. And to do so, you highlighted the dishonesty of Trump's claims better than I could.

So you think that if Trump claims something that might be true and there's some data to support it, but not enough to convince you necessarily, that makes his claim dishonest? What of your claim that it's all about scapegoating brown people? You don't even have anecdotes to offer me, more or less data about it. I'm entirely unconvinced of what you're saying. Am I therefore supposed to assume you're dishonest?

tstorm823:

We're not, and I'm personally not sure overstayed visas is ever really a problem. Also, overstayed visas isn't what people mean by illegal immigration, that's a civil offense, not a criminal one. Being in the country undocumented isn't the crime, jumping the border is the crime. Now let's stop the crime. We can worry about whether the visa system is broken and causing problems as well, but that doesn't change the nature of the crime we know is happening. Overstayed visas qualified for visas, so to our knowledge, they aren't gang members or felons. Residing in the US doesn't enable someone to do something like drug trafficking, moving internationally undetected does. 90% of narcotics entering the US do so across that border. Something like 30% of all human traffic victims that enter the US do so crossing that border. if stopping those things isn't noble enough to warrant the effort of securing the border, I don't know what's enough for you.

It's only an administrative crime. Morally, jaywalking or driving with an expired license is more serious of a crime.

tstorm823:
We do have those things. We do fund those things. They just aren't controversial. Just U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, not counting any other efforts at border security, we spend 2-3 times that $5 billion dollar wall request annually. We put an immense amount of effort and resources into non-barrier border security, and every time I've ever heard border patrol comment on the wall, they've basically said "yeah, our jobs would be easier with a wall. Like, duh."

First of all, you're going for the "Well I heard from someone somewhere" approach which...doesn't exactly scream reliability, you know?
Secondly...why? Why do you need the wall? What positives does a big static placement that can be easily overcome in numerous ways actually provide? Your 'quote' implies its obvious but...no, its really not.

tstorm823:
We're not, and I'm personally not sure overstayed visas is ever really a problem. Also, overstayed visas isn't what people mean by illegal immigration, that's a civil offense, not a criminal one. Being in the country undocumented isn't the crime, jumping the border is the crime. Now let's stop the crime.

Are you or are you not worried about people being in your country when they have no legal right to be? Why are you drawing distinction between people who game the system by getting in legally and staying longer than their visa allows and people who just skip the visa step altogether?
Also, if you want actual citations to back up undeadsuitor's claim of the visa thing being around 40% I'm sure a quick look can turf them up. Do it yourself or wait for me to do it when I've got the time for it

tstorm823:
We can worry about whether the visa system is broken and causing problems as well, but that doesn't change the nature of the crime we know is happening. Overstayed visas qualified for visas, so to our knowledge, they aren't gang members or felons. Residing in the US doesn't enable someone to do something like drug trafficking, moving internationally undetected does. 90% of narcotics entering the US do so across that border. Something like 30% of all human traffic victims that enter the US do so crossing that border. if stopping those things isn't noble enough to warrant the effort of securing the border, I don't know what's enough for you.

It's not about race.

You say its not about race yet here you are claiming that pretty much everyone who tries to cross the US/Mexico border is a criminal or criminal in waiting, just something for you to think on.
I certainly would like to stop that trafficking. I remain unconvinced a wall would have any effect on doing that

Palindromemordnilap:

First of all, you're going for the "Well I heard from someone somewhere" approach which...doesn't exactly scream reliability, you know?

Ok, but it's not that I heard from someone, it's that I've heard from experts on the news. The bring on experst or border patrol agents or police near the border and ask their opinion, and the answer is almost uniformly, "a wall isn't our number 1 priority, but yes, we want walls."

Secondly...why? Why do you need the wall? What positives does a big static placement that can be easily overcome in numerous ways actually provide? Your 'quote' implies its obvious but...no, its really not.

You have walls on your house. We have barriers in the middle of highways. We have fences around gated communities. Walls are everywhere because they stop things from moving through them. Are they 100% effective? Of course not. But if it makes walking across the border illegally harder than entering the right way, that's a benefit. If it makes it several times harder to move shipments of drugs through, that's a benefit. If it makes it so coyote's can't drop people off in the middle of the desert because they just need to get them across the border and don't want to be caught, that's a benefit.

"Easily overcome in numerous ways" is your imagination. Yes, a wall can be overcome, but you're making up the easily part from nowhere. And adding difficulty in doing something is an incentive not to do it.

Are you or are you not worried about people being in your country when they have no legal right to be? Why are you drawing distinction between people who game the system by getting in legally and staying longer than their visa allows and people who just skip the visa step altogether?
Also, if you want actual citations to back up undeadsuitor's claim of the visa thing being around 40% I'm sure a quick look can turf them up. Do it yourself or wait for me to do it when I've got the time for it.

No, I'm not worried about that. I'm drawing a distinction because there's an obvious distinction. If you go into a secure building, get identified and pass through security, and are told you can stay for 1 hour, after 2 hours, you're breaking the rules, but they still know who you are and know you didn't bring bombs in with you. If people overstay their visas, they're violating our immigration laws, but we still ascertained who they are, permitted them entry, and presumably checked that they weren't carrying any bombs with them when they drove/flew in. A lot of the stories of illegal immigrants committing serious crimes, like murder, say something like "this person was a known felon that had been deported 3 times". That person didn't overstay their visa, that person wouldn't qualify for a visa, that person only gets into the country by sneaking in. You'd have to be silly to not care more about that person's method of entry than just casual, likely victimless rulebreakers.

You say its not about race yet here you are claiming that pretty much everyone who tries to cross the US/Mexico border is a criminal or criminal in waiting, just something for you to think on.

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that at all. It's not that everyone who crosses that border is or will be a criminal, it's that almost every criminal getting into the country undetected is coming across that border. These are 2 different statements.

tstorm823:
Ok, but it's not that I heard from someone, it's that I've heard from experts on the news. The bring on experst or border patrol agents or police near the border and ask their opinion, and the answer is almost uniformly, "a wall isn't our number 1 priority, but yes, we want walls."

Experts you can name? A news channel you can name?

tstorm823:
You have walls on your house. We have barriers in the middle of highways. We have fences around gated communities. Walls are everywhere because they stop things from moving through them. Are they 100% effective? Of course not. But if it makes walking across the border illegally harder than entering the right way, that's a benefit. If it makes it several times harder to move shipments of drugs through, that's a benefit. If it makes it so coyote's can't drop people off in the middle of the desert because they just need to get them across the border and don't want to be caught, that's a benefit.
You now what else we have in houses or gated communities? Alarms. Cameras. Its observation that we rely on to actually catch and deter criminals. Walls in those instances are really more for privacy or show

tstorm823:
"Easily overcome in numerous ways" is your imagination. Yes, a wall can be overcome, but you're making up the easily part from nowhere. And adding difficulty in doing something is an incentive not to do it.

The easily part is not in my imagination. Ladders are cheap, for instance. And simply crossing the border in the first place is not something you do on a whim, so adding in a single step of "buy ladder" isn't particularly disincentivising.

tstorm823:
No, I'm not worried about that. I'm drawing a distinction because there's an obvious distinction. If you go into a secure building, get identified and pass through security, and are told you can stay for 1 hour, after 2 hours, you're breaking the rules, but they still know who you are and know you didn't bring bombs in with you. If people overstay their visas, they're violating our immigration laws, but we still ascertained who they are, permitted them entry, and presumably checked that they weren't carrying any bombs with them when they drove/flew in. A lot of the stories of illegal immigrants committing serious crimes, like murder, say something like "this person was a known felon that had been deported 3 times". That person didn't overstay their visa, that person wouldn't qualify for a visa, that person only gets into the country by sneaking in. You'd have to be silly to not care more about that person's method of entry than just casual, likely victimless rulebreakers.

Thats a terrible distinction to draw. For a start, whats stopping the person who stayed 2hrs instead of 1 from just building bombs now they're through?

[quote="tstorm823" post="528.1056646.24290346"]I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that at all. It's not that everyone who crosses that border is or will be a criminal, it's that almost every criminal getting into the country undetected is coming across that border. These are 2 different statements.

You got proof for that statistic? Because it seems to be a rather blatant assumption on your part

Palindromemordnilap:

Experts you can name? A news channel you can name?

Typically NPR during my commute. Things like this interview, or this, but there are plenty others like those.

You now what else we have in houses or gated communities? Alarms. Cameras. Its observation that we rely on to actually catch and deter criminals. Walls in those instances are really more for privacy or show.

Alarms and cameras work with walls. Would you really feel safer in a Gazebo with a security camera than you would in a house without one? Not that this matters, your insistence that things other than a wall are valuable is a waste of time. I agree, other forms of security are valuable, we fund our border security to the tune of 10 billion dollars a year. What we don't fund is barriers.

The easily part is not in my imagination. Ladders are cheap, for instance. And simply crossing the border in the first place is not something you do on a whim, so adding in a single step of "buy ladder" isn't particularly disincentivising.

You think buying a ladder and carrying it up to a border fence to climb over is safe and easy? Don't you think carrying a ladder up to the border is more conspicuous than just walking? Don't you think it's more difficult? You're thinking "how do I get over a wall" rather than "how do I get to a wall, get over it, and get away without being caught."

Thats a terrible distinction to draw. For a start, whats stopping the person who stayed 2hrs instead of 1 from just building bombs now they're through?

You're trying to push me into an argument I'm not making so that your soundbyte response can apply. Think this through. Your suggestion is that I should consider someone who passes a security check and stays too long as the same problem as someone who sneaks by the security check? Your suggestion is that people are all applying for Visas, getting approved, entering the country, living peaceful lives, and waiting for the Visa to expire, and then committing crimes, so we have to aggressively deport these people before they do that? That's a completely ridiculous train of thought. You know what isn't a ridiculous train of thought? Thinking the person who sneaks past the security check did so because they wouldn't have been allowed through.

You know what else isn't ridiculous? Catching 100+ convicted sex offenders trying to sneak across the border each year.

You got proof for that statistic? Because it seems to be a rather blatant assumption on your part

I suppose it is an assumption. But the vast vast vast vast majority of people in the country undocumented who aren't Visa overstays crossed through from the south. And criminal records tend to be disqualifying for people seeking Visas. So it's a really, really safe assumption.

tstorm823:
Typically NPR during my commute. Things like this interview, or this, but there are plenty others like those.

I mean, from your own source:
"And that's the thing - walls and barriers don't work on their own. They need boots on the ground. So we need increased staffing. We need radios that are up to date. We need the infrastructure as far as the roads to get to those barriers. So there's a lot of other things that need to be built as well as the barriers."
So the expert is actually telling you that you need proper infrastructure, that what you're really going to need is the people. You know, exactly what I've been telling you, that you need observation and manpower not just some vanity project wall

tstorm823:
Alarms and cameras work with walls. Would you really feel safer in a Gazebo with a security camera than you would in a house without one? Not that this matters, your insistence that things other than a wall are valuable is a waste of time. I agree, other forms of security are valuable, we fund our border security to the tune of 10 billion dollars a year. What we don't fund is barriers.

Honestly, kinda. In a house without a camera what's stopping someone just breaking a window, strolling right in and looting everything? The walls ain't gonna do shit. The obvious monitoring of a camera is far more of a psychological deterrent and even if that doesn't work well then we've got you on camera so thats a step in tracking you down.
Why is my argument a waste of time? I'm arguing that instead of the wall you should work on improving what you already have. Examine exactly what problems border patrols might have and work on legitimately addressing them rather than assume a wall is a catch-all that will solve everything

tstorm823:
You think buying a ladder and carrying it up to a border fence to climb over is safe and easy? Don't you think carrying a ladder up to the border is more conspicuous than just walking? Don't you think it's more difficult? You're thinking "how do I get over a wall" rather than "how do I get to a wall, get over it, and get away without being caught."

Getting to the border fence is in and of itself not an easy task. Planning ahead and bringing a ladder to get over the wall you know will be there isn't too much harder. And you say it'll be conspicuous, but conspicuous to who exactly? The wall itself has no eyes, cannot report back that someone is climbing it. You're just demonstrating my point, that what you really need is better observation, not an easily surmountable block of concrete

tstorm823:
You're trying to push me into an argument I'm not making so that your soundbyte response can apply. Think this through. Your suggestion is that I should consider someone who passes a security check and stays too long as the same problem as someone who sneaks by the security check?

Yes, thats exactly it. And if you're not considering them the same, then why not? Both are in the country illegally, both are using resources they technically have no legal recourse to. If anything the person overstaying their visa is probably more of a drain because they'll actually be using things they shouldn't be whereas the border crosser wants to keep their head down. What's the difference? Again, this seems to be the idea in your head that everyone coming from the southern border is a criminal, and you were trying to not make this about race remember?

tstorm823:
Your suggestion is that people are all applying for Visas, getting approved, entering the country, living peaceful lives, and waiting for the Visa to expire, and then committing crimes, so we have to aggressively deport these people before they do that? That's a completely ridiculous train of thought. You know what isn't a ridiculous train of thought? Thinking the person who sneaks past the security check did so because they wouldn't have been allowed through.

No, I'm pointing out that your bomb analogy was ridiculous. You're assuming people overstaying visas are more trustworthy, but by your own logic if they're already committing that one crime then what's stopping them committing more? Like, that's tangible evidence that they don't think too highly of laws, honestly more tangible than your "oh but if they're trying to cross then they must be up to something" argument here

tstorm823:
I suppose it is an assumption. But the vast vast vast vast majority of people in the country undocumented who aren't Visa overstays crossed through from the south. And criminal records tend to be disqualifying for people seeking Visas. So it's a really, really safe assumption.

So you don't have proof but you're going to continue to insist upon an argument that you just have a gut feeling about? Really? Not going to try and look into things in any way?

Palindromemordnilap:

So the expert is actually telling you that you need proper infrastructure, that what you're really going to need is the people. You know, exactly what I've been telling you, that you need observation and manpower not just some vanity project wall

Honestly, kinda. In a house without a camera what's stopping someone just breaking a window, strolling right in and looting everything? The walls ain't gonna do shit. The obvious monitoring of a camera is far more of a psychological deterrent and even if that doesn't work well then we've got you on camera so that's a step in tracking you down.
Why is my argument a waste of time? I'm arguing that instead of the wall you should work on improving what you already have. Examine exactly what problems border patrols might have and work on legitimately addressing them rather than assume a wall is a catch-all that will solve everything

Getting to the border fence is in and of itself not an easy task. Planning ahead and bringing a ladder to get over the wall you know will be there isn't too much harder. And you say it'll be conspicuous, but conspicuous to who exactly? The wall itself has no eyes, cannot report back that someone is climbing it. You're just demonstrating my point, that what you really need is better observation, not an easily surmountable block of concrete

I'm not saying non-wall methods are bad or unneeded. Continually pointing out the good of non-wall things doesn't contradict me because I'm not saying those things are bad. The US as a whole isn't saying those things are bad. We spend lots of money on those things. We have border patrol, we have cameras, we have beacons where people can turn themselves in, we've got sensors, radar, aerial surveillance, and we have walls in some places. More wall is the only controversial part. I don't have to or want to argue against everything that isn't a wall, you're the one who wants to argue against the wall. The people who actually work to protect the border say more wall is good, tell me why they're wrong. Don't tell me what other things are good, tell me why the wall isn't.

Yes, thats exactly it. And if you're not considering them the same, then why not? Both are in the country illegally, both are using resources they technically have no legal recourse to. If anything the person overstaying their visa is probably more of a drain because they'll actually be using things they shouldn't be whereas the border crosser wants to keep their head down. What's the difference? Again, this seems to be the idea in your head that everyone coming from the southern border is a criminal, and you were trying to not make this about race remember?

Still not saying that everyone coming across the Southern border is a criminal alien. Still not saying that. There is border patrol at the US-Canada border, there's just a lot less people crossing there illegally.

No, I'm pointing out that your bomb analogy was ridiculous. You're assuming people overstaying visas are more trustworthy, but by your own logic if they're already committing that one crime then what's stopping them committing more? Like, that's tangible evidence that they don't think too highly of laws, honestly more tangible than your "oh but if they're trying to cross then they must be up to something" argument here.

They aren't committing a crime. Overstaying a Visa isn't a criminal offense, nor do I think that it should be. And there's such a simple difference here, I don't know how you're missing this: we check people for a criminal history before giving them a Visa to enter the country. People convicted of a serious crimes don't get Visas. How do you not see a distinction between a group of people who were identified, screened for criminal convictions, and then permitted entry vs a group who weren't even identified? One of these groups can contain already convicted murderers roaming free, and the other can't.

So you don't have proof but you're going to continue to insist upon an argument that you just have a gut feeling about? Really? Not going to try and look into things in any way?

Nope.

tstorm823:
The people who actually work to protect the border say more wall is good, tell me why they're wrong.

They're not necessarily experts in the right sort of way.

For instance, a police officer is not necessarily an ideal person to ask on whether a law is good or bad to bring in. A police officer has a lot of skills in law enforcement, but a lot of that is equipment use, regulations, form-filling, procedures, etc. It's not specialist skill in considering what the wider societal effect of a law might be.

As a hypothetical, let's say a wall stops 1000 illegal immigrants a year: that's an improvement, so "good". But is it enough improvement for billions of dollars worth of construction (plus substantial continual annual expenditure in maintenance) whilst 7,999,000 are still getting through?

And frankly, given the voting patterns of states on the Mexican border and the likelihood that the job would intrinsically be more attractive to right-wing, anti-immigration people, are they not possibly going to be just a bit biased towards what their political favourites say is a good idea?

Agema:

They're not necessarily experts in the right sort of way.

For instance, a police officer is not necessarily an ideal person to ask on whether a law is good or bad to bring in. A police officer has a lot of skills in law enforcement, but a lot of that is equipment use, regulations, form-filling, procedures, etc. It's not specialist skill in considering what the wider societal effect of a law might be.

As a hypothetical, let's say a wall stops 1000 illegal immigrants a year: that's an improvement, so "good". But is it enough improvement for billions of dollars worth of construction (plus substantial continual annual expenditure in maintenance) whilst 7,999,000 are still getting through?

It's fair not to ask a police officer what laws should be, but I don't think what the laws should be is the controversy. I'd agree maybe it should be in some cases, but the controversy is on how to enforce the law. The laws say people aren't allowed to just walk across the border and go about their business, and I don't think people against the wall are necessarily against that. I think the position of de facto open borders is held by a fringe minority, and popular opposition to the wall is more likely to sound like your second paragraph.

And to that second paragraph, we spend billions on border security already. A barrier the length of the border could be erected for a few years worth of the CBE budget. Ideally, investment in barriers and the things Palindrome is stuck on would actually bring that budget down. One of the interviews I listened to was talking about a region where the fence stopped at the side of a mountain. They built the barrier, and the number of crossings in that area dropped overall, but the number of people trying to climb over the mountain increased, so now they have to patrol the mountains on horses and atvs cause if they wait to catch people on the other side, they end up dying in the mountains. And the person talking wanted to extend the fence over the top of the mountain and put camera's along it so that would know when people were trying that without needing constant patrolling. Walls and cameras are expensive, but few things are as expensive as manpower. And if people get turned away, it'd probably free up a bunch of budget used for those 50,000 detention beds, cause god knows how much that costs. Each of those detention beds would only need to represent 20 grand in operational cost a year to reach a billion dollars annually. Even if there's only a fraction fewer people, the cost would be recouped over time.

And frankly, given the voting patterns of states on the Mexican border and the likelihood that the job would intrinsically be more attractive to right-wing, anti-immigration people, are they not possibly going to be just a bit biased towards what their political favourites say is a good idea?

You're just thinking about Texas. You also have to think about California. The American Southwest has been leaning blue for decades, especially right against the border.

tstorm823:
I'm not saying non-wall methods are bad or unneeded. Continually pointing out the good of non-wall things doesn't contradict me because I'm not saying those things are bad. The US as a whole isn't saying those things are bad. We spend lots of money on those things. We have border patrol, we have cameras, we have beacons where people can turn themselves in, we've got sensors, radar, aerial surveillance, and we have walls in some places. More wall is the only controversial part. I don't have to or want to argue against everything that isn't a wall, you're the one who wants to argue against the wall. The people who actually work to protect the border say more wall is good, tell me why they're wrong. Don't tell me what other things are good, tell me why the wall isn't.

The wall isn't good because what would the wall actually do? You think it will stop people? Why? How? What could a wall do to prevent people from scaling it with ladders and undermining it with tunnels? The wall will do jack shit, you need people to watch for that sort of thing. And if you have the more mobile patrols, if you have drones to keep an eye from the sky, if you have cameras to watch the area...then why do you need the wall? What's the wall going to help here? You keep insisting you need it and that it will work but you never explain how

tstorm823:
Still not saying that everyone coming across the Southern border is a criminal alien. Still not saying that. There is border patrol at the US-Canada border, there's just a lot less people crossing there illegally.

I mean you kind of are. Remember how you made the point earlier that it should be hard for people to acquire a ladder then make it to the border? It would be more difficult for an average person, maybe, it would not be difficult for a drug trafficker, because if they have money to make drugs they have money for ladders. So you're applying the same logic you would to actual criminals to basically everyone. You are tarring everyone with the same brush. So yes, you are in effect saying everyone coming from the southern border is a criminal. Assess your biases dude

tstorm823:
They aren't committing a crime. Overstaying a Visa isn't a criminal offense, nor do I think that it should be. And there's such a simple difference here, I don't know how you're missing this: we check people for a criminal history before giving them a Visa to enter the country. People convicted of a serious crimes don't get Visas. How do you not see a distinction between a group of people who were identified, screened for criminal convictions, and then permitted entry vs a group who weren't even identified? One of these groups can contain already convicted murderers roaming free, and the other can't.

I mean it is a crime though. Being caught overstaying your visa will get you deported just the same as never getting a visa in the first place. And screening only works if they've been caught/convicted of something, if they got away with a crime then it won't show up. You see how your "But what if there are murderers!" logic can work in basically any direction? It's not a great support for your case.
Also, going to point out the contradiction between your last paragraph where you assure me you aren't claiming everyone coming across the southern border is a criminal, and this one where you quite blatantly claim that groups coming from the southern border could be full of dangerous murderers. Do you not see the flaw in your logic there?

tstorm823:

So you don't have proof but you're going to continue to insist upon an argument that you just have a gut feeling about? Really? Not going to try and look into things in any way?

Nope.

A stance which speaks for itself

Palindromemordnilap:

The wall isn't good because what would the wall actually do? You think it will stop people? Why? How? What could a wall do to prevent people from scaling it with ladders and undermining it with tunnels? The wall will do jack shit, you need people to watch for that sort of thing. And if you have the more mobile patrols, if you have drones to keep an eye from the sky, if you have cameras to watch the area...then why do you need the wall? What's the wall going to help here? You keep insisting you need it and that it will work but you never explain how.

How does it work? By getting in people's way. How do I know it works? Data. The top graph is total undocumented US residents.

image
image

There were some fencing efforts in the 90's that didn't accomplish much because they focused on stretches of a few miles. The first attempt at blocking large areas was The Secure Fence Act of 2006. You can probably guess that was in 2006. Look at what happened immediately after: the illegal immigrant population stabilized and the number of border apprehensions plummeted. I know there are economic factors that contribute to changes in trends, but not to explain that hook. The undocumented population is on a downward trend while having to stop fewer people at the border since we built fences.

They were deterred by the fences. They would be deterred by the wall.

Also, going to point out the contradiction between your last paragraph where you assure me you aren't claiming everyone coming across the southern border is a criminal, and this one where you quite blatantly claim that groups coming from the southern border could be full of dangerous murderers. Do you not see the flaw in your logic there?

The flaw is in your logic. It's a very simple flaw: some =/= all.

People granted Visas: ~100% neither convicted felons nor people with a history of violating immigration law.
People crossing illegally: includes thousands of convicted felons and people withe a history of violating immigration law in just the people caught by CBP.

Those thousands could very well be 1% of the total. Actually, I've provided enough sources in this thread to math this one out. The table above says in 2017 there were about 300,000 border apprehensions. The CBP link says 8500 of them were "criminal aliens", meaning "aliens who have been convicted of one or more crimes, whether in the United States or abroad, prior to interdiction by the U.S. Border Patrol". That's in the ballpark of 3%, and could be higher if the same criminal is apprehended multiple times. So to put a finer point on it, I'm not now nor have nor will say that everyone coming across the southern border is a criminal: I'm saying approximately 3% of them are, as opposed to the approximately 0% of people who get Visas.

tstorm823:
How does it work? By getting in people's way. How do I know it works? Data. The top graph is total undocumented US residents.

image
image

There were some fencing efforts in the 90's that didn't accomplish much because they focused on stretches of a few miles. The first attempt at blocking large areas was The Secure Fence Act of 2006. You can probably guess that was in 2006. Look at what happened immediately after: the illegal immigrant population stabilized and the number of border apprehensions plummeted. I know there are economic factors that contribute to changes in trends, but not to explain that hook. The undocumented population is on a downward trend while having to stop fewer people at the border since we built fences.

They were deterred by the fences. They would be deterred by the wall.

Look at your own graph more closely dude, rates of immigration were already falling. The spike in what I think is 2005 is an anomaly compared to a drop that has clearly been happening since around 2000. So what do fences have to do anything?
Also, I'm going to have to remind you of your own arguments: A, that you're only trying to stop legitimate criminals (your own examples being various flavours of traffickers) and B, that you aren't trying to tar everyone with the same brush and just label everyone a criminal. Yet this comment contradicts both of these points, as it doesn't discuss any fall in criminal activity and relies on the assumption that keeping all the brown people out must naturally be a good thing. Tell me again how this isn't you making it a race thing?

tstorm823:
The flaw is in your logic. It's a very simple flaw: some =/= all.

See above. It's not a distinction you yourself are making, assuming that anyone trying to immigrate must be a criminal is exactly what you are doing

tstorm823:
People granted Visas: ~100% neither convicted felons nor people with a history of violating immigration law.
People crossing illegally: includes thousands of convicted felons and people withe a history of violating immigration law in just the people caught by CBP.

Those thousands could very well be 1% of the total. Actually, I've provided enough sources in this thread to math this one out. The table above says in 2017 there were about 300,000 border apprehensions. The CBP link says 8500 of them were "criminal aliens", meaning "aliens who have been convicted of one or more crimes, whether in the United States or abroad, prior to interdiction by the U.S. Border Patrol". That's in the ballpark of 3%, and could be higher if the same criminal is apprehended multiple times. So to put a finer point on it, I'm not now nor have nor will say that everyone coming across the southern border is a criminal: I'm saying approximately 3% of them are, as opposed to the approximately 0% of people who get Visas.

I already pointed that that not being convicted doesn't necessarily mean you aren't a criminal. Could just mean you got away with it. Or could be using someone else's identity. If I look into it, what do you think the odds are of things like that being around 3%, an incredibly low percentage that you nevertheless think is enough to persecute everyone trying to cross the southern border?

Palindromemordnilap:

Look at your own graph more closely dude, rates of immigration were already falling. The spike in what I think is 2005 is an anomaly compared to a drop that has clearly been happening since around 2000. So what do fences have to do anything?

"There was some fencing in the 90's that didn't accomplish much because the focused on stretches of a few miles." But they did accomplish something, which inspired them build more fences. Hundreds of miles of them. Caused a precipitous drop in illegal immigration. Still fences.

Also, I'm going to have to remind you of your own arguments: A, that you're only trying to stop legitimate criminals (your own examples being various flavours of traffickers) and B, that you aren't trying to tar everyone with the same brush and just label everyone a criminal. Yet this comment contradicts both of these points, as it doesn't discuss any fall in criminal activity and relies on the assumption that keeping all the brown people out must naturally be a good thing. Tell me again how this isn't you making it a race thing?

Why are you incapable of representing my arguments? I'm not only trying to stop legitimate criminals. I'm trying to stop everyone from doing the activity that enables criminals. If it was legal to sell live explosive grenades in the US, I guarantee the vast majority, maybe ~97% or so, would either sit around unused or be detonated in a remote place hurting nobody. And the minority of them would kill people. So we ban the sale of hand grenades. I'm not trying to say that everyone who would buy a grenade is a murderer, but look, we've prevented all grenade deaths in America.

And we're not "keeping all the brown people out" by any stretch of the imagination. The US is one of the most immigrant nations in the world: by percentage of population, it ranks in the top 1/3rd, and by total number, it's number 1 and not even close. 20% of all the people currently living on planet earth who have immigrated in their lives did so to the US. That chart up there indicates 11 million undocumented immigrants, the total foreign born population is 46 million. We accept the most immigrants. We accept the most resettled refugees. For over 30 years, the US became the home of more permanent refugees than every other nation on Earth combined. In 2016, there were 3.9 million people withe temporary worker visas. You complain about visa overstays without putting together in your mind that we're giving them visas. We let them in. As long as they get permission and don't just rush the border.

"Tstorm, you just want a wall cause you hate brown people... also, it wouldn't stop the brown people because our racist, racist country gives them permission to enter the country with visas anyway."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here