Immigration

[Bluto]

Texas says it found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls; 58,000 have voted
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...-non-citizens-on-voter-rolls-58000-have-voted

58,000 divided by 16 million. That’s .0036 percent of the voting population, voting in “at least one election” (I’m assuming that wpuld include federal, state and local elections) spread out over more than 20 years across every voting district in the State. I have a sneaking suspicion that if one broke these numbers down even further they would be even more statistically insignificant.

 

[Irish YJ]

58,000 divided by 16 million. That’s .0036 percent of the voting population spread out over more than 20 years throughout the entire State.

so you and the left have gone from saying "it doesn't exist", to it "doesn't matter because it's small" lol... and this is a state that has had the toughest laws in the country.... if 95,000 happened in TX, and they have the toughest laws out there, what about the rest of the states who make it easy?

and those were the cases FOUND. do you have any idea how hard it is in some counties to get the basic info in the first place? it's a pure shit show to get voter rolls and data from a Dem county. and I doubt all counties were covered in this one. this is only the beginning of what will be a much larger investigation.

so honest question Bluto... at what point does it become real? how much voter fraud is necessary before common sense requirements are seen as common sense instead of racist? you're basically saying "we know it's easy to commit voter fraud, but we don't need common sense requirements, because we trust not enough illegals will do it"

 

[Bluto]

so you and the left have gone from saying "it doesn't exist", to it "doesn't matter because it's small" lol... and this is a state that has had the toughest laws in the country.... if 95,000 happened in TX, and they have the toughest laws out there, what about the rest of the states who make it easy?

and those were the cases FOUND. do you have any idea how hard it is in some counties to get the basic info in the first place? it's a pure shit show to get voter rolls and data from a Dem county. and I doubt all counties were covered in this one. this is only the beginning of what will be a much larger investigation.

so honest question Bluto... at what point does it become real? how much voter fraud is necessary before common sense requirements are seen as common sense instead of racist? you're basically saying "we know it's easy to commit voter fraud, but we don't need common sense requirements, because we trust not enough illegals will do it"

The numbers presented are beyond insignificant from any statistical analysis standpoint. Insignificant event is insignificant but feel free to keep being outraged over it. That is your perogative.

 

[Irish YJ]

The numbers presented are beyond insignificant from any statistical analysis standpoint. Insignificant event is insignificant but feel free to keep being outraged over it. That is your perogative.

Again, how significant does it have to be?

 

[Legacy]

Big difference between flagging voters for follow-up and fraudulent voters.

Texas officials flag tens of thousands of voters for citizenship checks
The list compiled by the Texas secretary of state contains 95,000 names. It’s unclear exactly how many of those individuals are not actually U.S. citizens and whether that number will be available in the future.

Trump election fraud commission did want to examine all the Texas voters with Hispanic surnames, though.

Trump election fraud commission bought Texas election data flagging Hispanic voters

In buying nearly 50 million records from the state with the nation’s second largest Hispanic population, a researcher for the White House panel checked a box on two Texas public voter data request forms explicitly asking for the “Hispanic surname flag notation,” to be included in information sent to the commission, according to copies of the signed and notarized state forms.

How costly is processing all those records for the state of Texas? Did they narrow the 50 million down to 95,000? How upset would you be if all your voting information was turned over to the feds, especially if your family had lived in Texas for centuries?

 

[Irish YJ]

Big difference between flagging voters for follow-up and fraudulent voters.

Texas officials flag tens of thousands of voters for citizenship checks
The list compiled by the Texas secretary of state contains 95,000 names. It’s unclear exactly how many of those individuals are not actually U.S. citizens and whether that number will be available in the future.

Trump election fraud commission did want to examine all the Texas voters with Hispanic surnames, though.

Trump election fraud commission bought Texas election data flagging Hispanic voters

LOL, a WAPO article disguised as a TX Tribune article.....

I mean, when you're looking for illegal voting by illegal immigrants in TX which are 99+% Hispanic, should they be flagging Irish last names? TX voter registration has been flagging Hispanic surnames since 83 in order to send bilingual registration forms..... so if that data point is available, why wouldn't you ask for it?

and from the same article on flagging....

In an advisory released Friday afternoon, the office said it was flagging individuals who had provided the Texas Department of Public Safety with some form of documentation — including a work visa or a green card — that showed they were not a citizen when they were obtaining a driver’s license or an ID card.

but go ahead, cast doubt and by all means keep cheery picking your quotes.. lol

 

[NorthDakota]

LOL, a WAPO article disguised as a TX Tribune article.....

I mean, when you're looking for illegal voting by illegal immigrants in TX which are 99+% Hispanic, should they be flagging Irish last names? TX voter registration has been flagging Hispanic surnames since 83 in order to send bilingual registration forms..... so if that data point is available, why wouldn't you ask for it?

and from the same article on flagging....



but go ahead, cast doubt and by all means keep cheery picking your quotes.. lol

Flag the Krauts, the Scandis, etc at the same rate as the latinos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Irish YJ]

Flag the Krauts, the Scandis, etc at the same rate as the latinos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The headlines he chose to use were incredibly misleading and picked to do nothing by stir the pot and cast doubt.

Legacy said there's a big difference between flagging voters and actual fraudulent voters, but the same article said they were flagged because they registered when they weren't citizens.... REGISTERING WHEN YOU'RE NOT A CITIZEN IS A CRIME... geesh.

And then the headline about flagging Hispanic voters.... The state has been flagging them for for 30+ years to send bilingual forms to them (TO HELP THEM). If you're going to investigate, you take all the data points available. And that is one of them.... It's not like Trump had a special data point created.

Just more lazy silliness.

 

[Legacy]

Texas says it found 95,000 non-citizens on voter rolls; 58,000 have voted
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...-non-citizens-on-voter-rolls-58000-have-voted

Worth comparing my first citation from Texas Tribune, which is more substantial, to the Fox News one on the same news.
Texas officials flag tens of thousands of voters for citizenship checks

 

[Irish YJ]

Worth comparing my first citation from Texas Tribune, which is more substantial, to the Fox News one on the same news.
Texas officials flag tens of thousands of voters for citizenship checks

so what is your point legacy?
the flag was because they were not citizens when they registered, which is illegal.
this article is hanging their "doubt" on "people get naturalized".... well, it's not likely all have been naturalized, and even the very small amount that might have, IT WAS STILL ILLEGAL TO REGISTER TO VOTE...

again, what is your point. quit making lazy comments and refer to a link. make your point with facts. and make them with actual facts, not conjecture which is countered in the same link...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

95,000 in Texas. Would love to see what the number is in California. Bluto would be outraged if they all voted R, and we know that sure as hell ain't the case

 

[Irish YJ]

95,000 in Texas. Would love to see what the number is in California. Bluto would be outraged if they all voted R, and we know that sure as hell ain't the case

you'd never get the data from Cali precincts.
it will be interesting to see how much data they actually got in TX (what % of counties)


looks like the wall between football and politics has been knocked down...

 

[Legacy]

Cursory Cost Analysis

Cursory Cost Analysis

A few of the costs from executive branch decisions above and beyond Congressional fundings to Border Patrol, fence maintenance to taxpayers already:

Deployment of U.S. troops to the border - from the Pentagon budget, initially estimate to be $75 million with withdrawal on December 15th. Trump rescinded the withdrawal, though the Pentagon felt their mission was accomplished. Should the troops stay through fiscal year 2019, the cost to taxpayers has been estimated to be $470 million from the Pentagon's budget.

Shelters for minors - With both the increase in families and unaccompanied minors and with the policy of separating children from parents, expanding capacity and contract and build more shelters were necessary. All administrations ran into the Flores agreement as result of a lawsuit brought against Janet Reno, Attorney General at the time, on the conditions for treatment of minors and right to appear before immigration courts. Funding for the housing and treatment of minors comes from the Health and Human Services budgets, is subject to state certifications and state and federal laws. Many of the multiple organizations running the shelters if not all of these organizations are non-profit 501(c)(3)s.
- Surges in minors crossing the border illegally were higher in previous administrations, but detentions in camps/shelters were for briefer times as their placement with families was faster.
- By mid-December, 15,000 children were being held in camps/shelters from Florida to Arizona at a per day cost of over $200 per child with funding from the HHS budgets.
- By the end of fiscal year 2018 last September, over 50,000 minors had crossed the border, but that was well below the numbers in 2014 and 2016 in the Obama administration. About ninety per cent of the minors were from Central American countries.

Shelter costs - the largest in terms of children being held was Southwest Key, which received $458 million to house these minors in 2018. I am not sure what the total cost is for all shelters is, but we could say $1 billion for the last fiscal year.
- Southwest Key had hundreds of violations of laws, mostly minor, but including sexual and child abuse cases. Due to these Arizona threatened to close all twelve of their shelters there and prosecuted those who committed the acts. Houston refused to certify a new large shelter that SW Key wanted to open there.
- Two other Texas companies - APTIM and BCFS - turned down a no bid contract with the federal government said to be worth $1 billion. The companies were established for disaster relief as with hurricanes.
- The wait time for placement under Trump administration was six to ten months until they changed their placement policies on fingerprinting that all non-family members subsequent to the organizations refusal of the $1 billion contracts. One of the largest facilities, which was a tent city in Tornillo Texas run by SW Key, has since closed down. Most of the children have been placed with the rest transferred to a Florida facility in Homestead.
- With the largest shelter organizations refusing further expansion and no-bid contracts, housing more children became problematic.

Immigration Courts - this one is hard to calculate, but the federal shutdown closed those courts for a month with estimated backlog increasing from three quarters of a million cases to an estimated million cases. These operate under the Dept of Justice and funding for those courts comes from their budgets and will be on-going as will continued shelter costs for minors. The admin wants more immigration judges.

Here's a good article on landowner issues in Texas where much of the border land is owned by wealthy owners and will require costs for eminent domain as well as any costs to fight lawsuits.

Estimated costs for building the border wall broken down to types of walls from Homeland Security.
A GAO analysis has also been made for those wishing to search for it.

Where Texas shelters are.

 

[Irish YJ]

And all those costs would never be a thing at all if people didn't cross illegally or exploit asylum status (economic asylum).

A few of the costs from executive branch decisions above and beyond Congressional fundings to Border Patrol, fence maintenance to taxpayers already:

Deployment of U.S. troops to the border - from the Pentagon budget, initially estimate to be $75 million with withdrawal on December 15th. Trump rescinded the withdrawal, though the Pentagon felt their mission was accomplished. Should the troops stay through fiscal year 2019, the cost to taxpayers has been estimated to be $470 million from the Pentagon's budget.

Shelters for minors - With both the increase in families and unaccompanied minors and with the policy of separating children from parents, expanding capacity and contract and build more shelters were necessary. All administrations ran into the Flores agreement as result of a lawsuit brought against Janet Reno, Attorney General at the time, on the conditions for treatment of minors and right to appear before immigration courts. Funding for the housing and treatment of minors comes from the Health and Human Services budgets, is subject to state certifications and state and federal laws. Many of the multiple organizations running the shelters if not all of these organizations are non-profit 501(c)(3)s.
- Surges in minors crossing the border illegally were higher in previous administrations, but detentions in camps/shelters were for briefer times as their placement with families was faster.
- By mid-December, 15,000 children were being held in camps/shelters from Florida to Arizona at a per day cost of over $200 per child with funding from the HHS budgets.
- By the end of fiscal year 2018 last September, over 50,000 minors had crossed the border, but that was well below the numbers in 2014 and 2016 in the Obama administration. About ninety per cent of the minors were from Central American countries.

Shelter costs - the largest in terms of children being held was Southwest Key, which received $458 million to house these minors in 2018. I am not sure what the total cost is for all shelters is, but we could say $1 billion for the last fiscal year.
- Southwest Key had hundreds of violations of laws, mostly minor, but including sexual and child abuse cases. Due to these Arizona threatened to close all twelve of their shelters there and prosecuted those who committed the acts. Houston refused to certify a new large shelter that SW Key wanted to open there.
- Two other Texas companies - APTIM and BCFS - turned down a no bid contract with the federal government said to be worth $1 billion. The companies were established for disaster relief as with hurricanes.
- The wait time for placement under Trump administration was six to ten months until they changed their placement policies on fingerprinting that all non-family members subsequent to the organizations refusal of the $1 billion contracts. One of the largest facilities, which was a tent city in Tornillo Texas run by SW Key, has since closed down. Most of the children have been placed with the rest transferred to a Florida facility in Homestead.
- With the largest shelter organizations refusing further expansion and no-bid contracts, housing more children became problematic.

Immigration Courts - this one is hard to calculate, but the federal shutdown closed those courts for a month with estimated backlog increasing from three quarters of a million cases to an estimated million cases. These operate under the Dept of Justice and funding for those courts comes from their budgets and will be on-going as will continued shelter costs for minors. The admin wants more immigration judges.

Here's a good article on landowner issues in Texas where much of the border land is owned by wealthy owners and will require costs for eminent domain as well as any costs to fight lawsuits.

Estimated costs for building the border wall broken down to types of walls from Homeland Security.
A GAO analysis has also been made for those wishing to search for it.

Where Texas shelters are.

 

[Legacy]

The playbook for all Presidents from here on out is, if you can't get what you want, declare an emergency.

Today the Pentagon announced it was sending "thousands" more troops to the southern border, which will significantly increase the costs to taxpayers. Currently there are 2,300 active duty troops at the border now and at least the same number of National Guard troops. The national Border Patrol union said in May the agents have “seen no benefit” and calls the deployments a “colossal waste of time.”

Federal grants to states' National Guards were suspended during the shutdown. The Governor of N.M. has been studying whether the NM Guard troops are needed, and is considering pulling them out. Gov. Lujan Grisham: “I think this calls for a re-review, making sure we agree what constitutes an emergency, what constitutes a crisis, whether or not we’re seeing real crisis emerge at the border, and how we should be using all these assets.” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the declaration of an emergency was not justified by the security situation at the border. Illegal border crossings have plummeted since 2006.

The costs of active duty and national guards come from the Pentagon budget. A President can federalize the national guards in case of national emergencies which has been done in the past for riots, etc. The last time this was done was in 1992 with the Rodney King riots. Utah's Guard has built walls in the past. California Guards' presence at the border has been extended to September. The Army Corps of Engineers would be tasked with building the wall under the emergency declaration. The corps would design the barriers and contract with construction firms to build it. Those funds would come from the Pentagon's budget approved by Congress for specific construction projects but not yet spent.

Congressional response is that an emergency declaration is both not needed and is an overreach of Presidential powers as well as spending money Congress allotted for other projects.

Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said in an interview that he opposed diverting money from the Pentagon's, or any other department's, budget to pay for the barriers. Diverting the money from the military would prevent it from, for example, building barracks to house troops.

“I urge President Trump not to siphon taxpayer money away from military construction or family housing or vital waterway infrastructure for his wall,” Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said Thursday night. “If congressional Republicans go along with this so-called emergency, future presidents will undoubtedly try and make similar end runs around Congress’s constitutional authority. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take the long view and do what is best for our nation, not just one Administration.”

Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., a member of the committee, said Thursday that he hopes Trump doesn’t declare an emergency and divert military money to build a wall. “Congress is concerned about the overreach, and I think the American public is concerned about the overreach of the executive branch of government right now,” Jones also said.

In a Pew survey, a "majority of Americans (58%) oppose substantially expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border – as Trump has sought – while 40% support doing so, according to a January 2019 survey by the Center."

How Americans see illegal immigration, the border wall and political compromise (Pew)

One scenario is that Congress reaches a compromise on border security, funds the government to avert a shutdown, Trump vetoes it, shutting down the government again and declares an emergency to use Pentagon's funds and have the Corps start building the wall. That would pressure the Senate to override Trump's veto. He could also federalize the National Guards to assure that they were paid during the shutdown.

Who's going to pay for the Wall???

 

[Irish YJ]

Still waiting on the Left to actually come up with a real plan to combat faux asylum, birth tourism, the exploitation of catch and release, or simply anything that stops illegals from crossing in the first place only to disappear or get caught and then manipulate the system......... oh, wait a minute, they like all that. and after all, a wall is immoral, but killing a baby minutes before birth is cool! right?

anyway, happy to be part of the minority....

The playbook for all Presidents from here on out is, if you can't get what you want, declare an emergency.

Today the Pentagon announced it was sending "thousands" more troops to the southern border, which will significantly increase the costs to taxpayers. Currently there are 2,300 active duty troops at the border now and at least the same number of National Guard troops. The national Border Patrol union said in May the agents have “seen no benefit” and calls the deployments a “colossal waste of time.”

Federal grants to states' National Guards were suspended during the shutdown. The Governor of N.M. has been studying whether the NM Guard troops are needed, and is considering pulling them out. Gov. Lujan Grisham: “I think this calls for a re-review, making sure we agree what constitutes an emergency, what constitutes a crisis, whether or not we’re seeing real crisis emerge at the border, and how we should be using all these assets.” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the declaration of an emergency was not justified by the security situation at the border. Illegal border crossings have plummeted since 2006.

The costs of active duty and national guards come from the Pentagon budget. A President can federalize the national guards in case of national emergencies which has been done in the past for riots, etc. The last time this was done was in 1992 with the Rodney King riots. Utah's Guard has built walls in the past. California Guards' presence at the border has been extended to September. The Army Corps of Engineers would be tasked with building the wall under the emergency declaration. The corps would design the barriers and contract with construction firms to build it. Those funds would come from the Pentagon's budget approved by Congress for specific construction projects but not yet spent.

Congressional response is that an emergency declaration is both not needed and is an overreach of Presidential powers as well as spending money Congress allotted for other projects.

Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said in an interview that he opposed diverting money from the Pentagon's, or any other department's, budget to pay for the barriers. Diverting the money from the military would prevent it from, for example, building barracks to house troops.

“I urge President Trump not to siphon taxpayer money away from military construction or family housing or vital waterway infrastructure for his wall,” Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said Thursday night. “If congressional Republicans go along with this so-called emergency, future presidents will undoubtedly try and make similar end runs around Congress’s constitutional authority. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will take the long view and do what is best for our nation, not just one Administration.”

Sen. Doug Jones, D-Ala., a member of the committee, said Thursday that he hopes Trump doesn’t declare an emergency and divert military money to build a wall. “Congress is concerned about the overreach, and I think the American public is concerned about the overreach of the executive branch of government right now,” Jones also said.

In a Pew survey, a "majority of Americans (58%) oppose substantially expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border – as Trump has sought – while 40% support doing so, according to a January 2019 survey by the Center."

How Americans see illegal immigration, the border wall and political compromise (Pew)

One scenario is that Congress reaches a compromise on border security, funds the government to avert a shutdown, Trump vetoes it, shutting down the government again and declares an emergency to use Pentagon's funds and have the Corps start building the wall. That would pressure the Senate to override Trump's veto. He could also federalize the National Guards to assure that they were paid during the shutdown.

Who's going to pay for the Wall???

 

[Irish#1]

We'll probably end up spending as much money having troops at the border as the wall costs.

 

[Legacy]

We'll probably end up spending as much money having troops at the border as the wall costs.

Agree. He doesn't know how to compromise for the good of the country. Sit everyone down, say no one gets everything they want, tell them he'll sign an Omnibus bill that keeps the government open for now, have both sides discuss issues that would be deal-breaking, green lights bills for a vote, do some horse-trading with other issues like his judicial nominees and promises for healthcare protection for those with chronic diseases, and start with the Comprehensive Immigration bill passed overwhelming in the Senate in 2013. Come out of it looking Presidential and a leader who acknowledges Congress as having the power of the purse, isn't robbing the Pentagon and other departments' budgets, and sees his popularity go up for 2020. He could also green light health care protection for those with chronic diseases as promised during 2018.

He gets border security, immigration laws, his judges, DACA, keeps the government productive, builds pathways for bipartisan bills to get passed, and more. That's the Art of the Deal. Do you think he'll do that?

 

[Irish YJ]

Agree. He doesn't know how to compromise for the good of the country. Sit everyone down, say no one gets everything they want, tell them he'll sign an Omnibus bill that keeps the government open for now, have both sides discuss issues that would be deal-breaking, green lights bills for a vote, do some horse-trading with other issues like his judicial nominees and promises for healthcare protection for those with chronic diseases, and start with the Comprehensive Immigration bill passed overwhelming in the Senate in 2013. Come out of it looking Presidential and a leader who acknowledges Congress as having the power of the purse, isn't robbing the Pentagon and other departments' budgets, and sees his popularity go up for 2020. He could also green light health care protection for those with chronic diseases as promised during 2018.

He gets border security, immigration laws, his judges, DACA, keeps the government productive, builds pathways for bipartisan bills to get passed, and more. That's the Art of the Deal. Do you think he'll do that?

He'd do that before Pelosi would....

 

[Irish YJ]

Time to clarify jus soli and get back to limiting it to its original/founding purpose. If folks can't evaluate it with common sense, then just get rid of it.

The US arrests 'birth tourism' operators linked to China for the first time
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/asia/chinese-birth-tourism-arrest/index.html

Three people were arrested on charges of running "birth tourism" companies that catered to Chinese clients in Southern California Thursday. It is the first time that criminal charges have been filed in a US federal court over the practice, according to Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the US Attorney's Office.

"Birth tourists" travel to foreign countries to give birth, so that their children acquire the citizenship of that country. In the US, the legal principle of jus soli automatically confers citizenship upon babies born on US soil. Other countries, including Switzerland and Japan, do not grant citizenship automatically unless one or more parents are also citizens.
The three people in custody had not given comment at time of publishing. All were charged "conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, international money laundering and identity theft," according to the DOJ statement.
The charges stem from a 2015 raid of dozens of so-called "maternity hotels," often upscale apartments, where mothers-to-be paid between $15,000 to $50,000 to give birth in the US, according to a statement given at the time by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

 

[Legacy]

Just a follow-up on a prior statement about border residents and Trump's border wall.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Who Really Wants The Border Wall
Voices from around the country have drowned out Americans living in border communities.

A growing pile of data suggests that Americans who live on the United States-Mexico border don't want President Donald Trump's proposed border wall. By analyzing county results in the 2016 election, when border wall was a key issue, and numerous polls taken on the proposed border wall since then, it's clear that support for the wall comes predominantly from two places: areas in the country with few immigrants and states and counties that are not close to the border.

A closer look at the country results shows that, despite President Trump winning the state of Texas in the 2016 election, there is a concentration of support for former secretary of State Hillary Clinton that's almost exclusive to the border. In fact, per a Politico breakdown of election results, of the 14 border counties in Texas, 10 went blue for Clinton. 399,607 border residents in Texas voted for Clinton in 2016, and just 162,896 voted for Trump.

A common retort to the region's apparent disdain for the wall is that the border is populated by immigrants, particularly immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries, thus the push back against President Trump, who ran as an immigration hardliner. But even that claim is dubious: a study of Texas border families found that citizens living near the border are actually predominantly American-born citizens.

"Surprisingly, even though Texas' border counties are the gateway to Mexico, fewer than one of every five children living in those counties lives in an immigrant family," the study published by the Center for Public Policy Priorities found.

Moreover, the support for the wall from Texas as a whole is meager. President Trump won the state handily, but just 43 percent of Texans support his border wall, while 53 percent oppose it, according to a Quinnipiac poll published on April 19.

Similar trends can be seen in New Mexico, Arizona and California, the three other states bordering Mexico.

Univision, Dallas News and Cronkite News conducted a survey in July of 2016 that asked 1,427 residents on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border a series of immigration questions. 72 percent of respondents on the U.S. side opposed a border wall, while 86 percent of respondents on the Mexico side opposed the wall, Dallas News found. 79 percent of residents on the U.S. side of the border added that they were dependent on their neighbors in Mexico for economic survival, and less than one percent of people responding in U.S. border cities said they viewed the people on the other side of the border as criminals.

"The border is so mischaracterized," Benjamin Andrew Karner, one of the poll respondents, a pastor living in Laredo, told Dallas News. "The place is not as crazy or dangerous as people make it out to be. People think it's the wild, wild West and there are shootouts everywhere… Not true. The crime here seems to be less than other places I have lived."

Karner's intuition is accurate: border towns are some of the safest cities in the country.

That might be why similar opposition to a wall can be found outside Texas in the other border states and counties. In Arizona, two-thirds of the residents oppose President Donald Trump's border wall, according to a poll conducted in December of 2017. A February, 2018 poll of New Mexicans found that 53 percent say not to build a wall while just 38 percent support a wall.

Despite all this, President Trump has continued to portray people on the border as desperate for a wall to be built, saying on March 13, "the state of California is begging us to build walls in certain areas. They don't tell you that."

In reality, California is suing to stop Trump's wall, and the people there — just like the people in every border state and almost every border county — are overwhelmingly opposed to the wall.

So, where is support for the wall coming from? As it turns out, Trump's strongest support comes from states with the smallest immigrant presence and — in some cases — the states furthest from the border. Per CNN, in the 2016 election, President Trump won 26 of the 30 states where foreign-born immigrants represented the smallest percentage of the population. South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky are all states with fewer than one immigrant for every 20 residents. They also happen to be where Trump's most ardent support comes from.

West Virginia, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota also have fewer than 5,000 undocumented immigrants in their state, the least of any in the country. Trump's wall, of course, is supposed to help stop the influx of undocumented immigrants, drugs and crimes into America.

Conversely, Clinton won 16 of the 20 states with the highest foreign-born population.

The story this depicts is clear: support for a border wall between the United States and Mexico is coming from states with the fewest immigrants, documented and undocumented, or those states that are the furthest from the actual border. And in the states where the most immigrants live, the states where Americans are nearest to the border, presumably the places that a border wall would affect the most, the opposite is true.

The GOP lost two Senate seats in Arizona and in Nevada in 2018. In the 2020 elections, Colorado Sen. Corey Gardner and Arizona's Senator Martha McSally, appointed to fill out the remained of John McCain's seat are GOP Senators at or near the border up for re-election. Two other Sens up for re-election - Cornyn (Tx) and Udall (NM) should be favored to win. Two Senators from the Dems flipped Senate seats in 2018. Gardner called for ending the shutdown without funding the border wall. In Utah, support for the border wall is divided about equally.

According to a Pew survey in January, 2019, a majority of Americans (58%) oppose substantially expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border – as Trump has sought – while 40% support doing so. Border security with other means is a different story.

A CBS poll found that two-thirds of Americans oppose President Donald Trump declaring a national emergency if Congress doesn't give him funds he wants to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.

 

[NorthDakota]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a chunk of the opposition to the wall is really just #resisting Donald.

I'm on mobile right now, but I think I've seen that Democrat support for physical barriers at the border plummeted as soon as Donald's campaign started up. When Barry O, Chuck, and Nance were voting in favor of beefing up barriers, I dont recall it being a big problem.

 

[Irish YJ]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a chunk of the opposition to the wall is really just #resisting Donald.

I'm on mobile right now, but I think I've seen that Democrat support for physical barriers at the border plummeted as soon as Donald's campaign started up. When Barry O, Chuck, and Nance were voting in favor of beefing up barriers, I dont recall it being a big problem.

I'd love to see Legacy spend a moment trying to address the dem's support of the wall, and views on immigration pre-Orange Man. Or the public's support of the wall and views on immigration pre Dem shift.

I see Legacy reaching deep again on his choices of articles. This time, from Ashton Kutcher's NY social justice on-line news.... wonder if they plagiarized this article too?

 

[Legacy]

I've gotten used to others' choices not to respond to the content of articles I've posted. Each have a right not to contribute but to focus on individuals. I've posted multiple times on different threads the detailed Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (Google it) which comprehensively addresses border and immigration issues reached in an overwhelming bipartisan agreement (68-32) after years of discussions, and which was blocked in the House from a vote to prevent it from becoming law. Almost every aspect of immigration/border security was addressed, but is still be debated piecemeal.

Because it did not pass, we have DACA established by EO, subsequently rescinded. Birthright citizenship ("anchor babies" to some) is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. We have the Flores Agreement (vs Reno) from a judicial decision on the treatment of immigrant children - something the Obama and Trump admins have wanted Congress to address.

I have posted on the Secure Fence Act of 2006 where Congress reached a bipartisan agreement on funding wall construction. Passing the 2013 Act then or now would move the country forward.

We are reaching the end game on these issues. Border and western states are turning more blue. Some may look back on the two years prior to the next Congress and say that we could have reached a comprehensive bipartisan agreement. While there is a long way to go but also considering voters in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc in addition to western states are turning blue, a Dem sweep of the Senate and Presidency will lead to an Act that reflects their stances only.

We can talk when you comment on the comprehensive border security and immigration bill aspects.
Or you can continue to post comments like:

I'd love to see Legacy spend a moment trying to address the dem's support of the wall, and views on immigration pre-Orange Man. Or the public's support of the wall and views on immigration pre Dem shift.

Right now I see petulance, polarization and threats paralyzing bipartisanship.

 

[MJ12666]

I've gotten used to others' choices not to respond to the content of articles I've posted. Each have a right not to contribute but to focus on individuals. I've posted multiple times on different threads the detailed Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (Google it) which comprehensively addresses border and immigration issues reached in an overwhelming bipartisan agreement after years of discussions, and which was blocked in the House from a vote to prevent it from becoming law. Almost every aspect of immigration/border security was addressed, but is still be debated piecemeal.

Because it did not pass, we have DACA established by EO, subsequently rescinded. Birthright citizenship ("anchor babies" to some) is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. We have the Flores Agreement (vs Reno) from a judicial decision on the treatment of immigrant children - something the Obama and Trump admins have wanted Congress to address.

I have posted on the Secure Fence Act of 2006 where Congress reached a bipartisan agreement on funding wall construction. Passing the 2013 Act then or now would move the country forward.

We are reaching the end game on these issues. Border and western states are turning more blue. Some may look back on the two years prior to the next Congress and say that we could have reached a comprehensive bipartisan agreement. While there is a long way to go but also considering voters in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc in addition to western states are turning blue, a Dem sweep of the Senate and Presidency will lead to an Act that reflects their stances only.

We can talk when you comment on the comprehensive border security and immigration bill aspects.
Or you can continue to post comments like:


Right now I see petulance, polarization and threats paralyzing bipartisanship.

After reading a summary of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, and if I was in a position of voting on the bill, I would have voted no. The bill basically can be summarized as giving legal status to all illegal immigrants with the "promise" that DHS would develop and implement a plan to secure the border. So by voting yes you would be basically gambling that in the future things will get better. I don't think so.

As far as the EO on DACA, I can't see any way that this EO is not overturned by the Supreme Court. The president clearly does not have the power to do this.

I also looked at the Secure Fence Act of 2006. After reading about it I can see why the "compassionate conservative" Bush supported this act. This law obviously did nothing as if estimates are correct the US has approximately 12 million illegal immigrants versus approximately 11 million in 2006. So the bill did nothing to reduce the number of illegals. So what was the point except for building a flimsy fence that is falling down.

 

[Irish YJ]

I've gotten used to others' choices not to respond to the content of articles I've posted. Each have a right not to contribute but to focus on individuals. I've posted multiple times on different threads the detailed Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (Google it) which comprehensively addresses border and immigration issues reached in an overwhelming bipartisan agreement (68-32) after years of discussions, and which was blocked in the House from a vote to prevent it from becoming law. Almost every aspect of immigration/border security was addressed, but is still be debated piecemeal.

Because it did not pass, we have DACA established by EO, subsequently rescinded. Birthright citizenship ("anchor babies" to some) is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. We have the Flores Agreement (vs Reno) from a judicial decision on the treatment of immigrant children - something the Obama and Trump admins have wanted Congress to address.

I have posted on the Secure Fence Act of 2006 where Congress reached a bipartisan agreement on funding wall construction. Passing the 2013 Act then or now would move the country forward.

We are reaching the end game on these issues. Border and western states are turning more blue. Some may look back on the two years prior to the next Congress and say that we could have reached a comprehensive bipartisan agreement. While there is a long way to go but also considering voters in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc in addition to western states are turning blue, a Dem sweep of the Senate and Presidency will lead to an Act that reflects their stances only.

We can talk when you comment on the comprehensive border security and immigration bill aspects.
Or you can continue to post comments like:


Right now I see petulance, polarization and threats paralyzing bipartisanship.

for quoting a post, you typed a whole lot, without addressing the actual point of the post. not surprised.

 

[Legacy]

After reading a summary of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, and if I was in a position of voting on the bill, I would have voted no. The bill basically can be summarized as giving legal status to all illegal immigrants with the "promise" that DHS would develop and implement a plan to secure the border. So by voting yes you would be basically gambling that in the future things will get better. I don't think so.

As far as the EO on DACA, I can't see any way that this EO is not overturned by the Supreme Court. The president clearly does not have the power to do this.

I also looked at the Secure Fence Act of 2006. After reading about it I can see why the "compassionate conservative" Bush supported this act. This law obviously did nothing as if estimates are correct the US has approximately 12 million illegal immigrants versus approximately 11 million in 2006. So the bill did nothing to reduce the number of illegals. So what was the point except for building a flimsy fence that is falling down.

The bolded is the sticking point with me and a very valid criticism. We are a country of laws as well as compassion for refugees. For those who wish to come to the U.S. and be productive, contributing to our economic growth and don't overstay their visas, we should find legal ways of assisting employers to hire foreign workers whether they are low-skill agriculture workers or STEM workers for tech companies. Employers can't wait to hire foreign workers with the processing wait times for the current system. Visa systems that address this for workers who want to remain citizens of their countries are needed. That may reduce the illegal aliens/immigrant numbers driven not only by economic opportunities here but also by American employers' needs.

A recent study by the Labor Department shows that companies have 7.3 million job openings which is the highest level in two decades - even with a current estimate of 10.7 million illegal immigrants. The last time it was that high was in 2000 when the unemployment rate was 6.3%. The unemployment rate is at 4.0 percent with 6.5 million Americans unemployed. These are probably Americans without the skills needed or in geographical areas where those jobs are.

- Many industries with the biggest increases in job openings include mostly lower-paying jobs. Restaurants and hotels advertised more than 1 million jobs, 84,000 more than in November.
- Health care job postings rose 79,000 to 1.2 million.
- Some higher-paying industries also did well. Professional and business services, which include jobs in fields such as architecture and engineering, rose 82,000 to 1.34 million.
- Available jobs in manufacturing, meanwhile, fell 67,000 to 428,000. They also dropped in retail and financial services.

I agree that EOs for DACA and for any possible declaration of a border emergency to use funds not passed by Congress for specific other purposes could not survive legal scrutiny.

Congress needs to act, requiring compromise.

 

[Irish#1]

The problem getting people vetted is the long background checks now being done. You can thank 911 for that. No agency wants to come under fire for not thoroughly vetting someone who ended up killing some citizens.

 

[Wild Bill]

The bolded is the sticking point with me and a very valid criticism. We are a country of laws as well as compassion for refugees. For those who wish to come to the U.S. and be productive, contributing to our economic growth and don't overstay their visas, we should find legal ways of assisting employers to hire foreign workers whether they are low-skill agriculture workers or STEM workers for tech companies. Employers can't wait to hire foreign workers with the processing wait times for the current system. Visa systems that address this for workers who want to remain citizens of their countries are needed. That may reduce the illegal aliens/immigrant numbers driven not only by economic opportunities here but also by American employers' needs.

A recent study by the Labor Department shows that companies have 7.3 million job openings which is the highest level in two decades - even with a current estimate of 10.7 million illegal immigrants. The last time it was that high was in 2000 when the unemployment rate was 6.3%. The unemployment rate is at 4.0 percent with 6.5 million Americans unemployed. These are probably Americans without the skills needed or in geographical areas where those jobs are.

- Many industries with the biggest increases in job openings include mostly lower-paying jobs. Restaurants and hotels advertised more than 1 million jobs, 84,000 more than in November.
- Health care job postings rose 79,000 to 1.2 million.
- Some higher-paying industries also did well. Professional and business services, which include jobs in fields such as architecture and engineering, rose 82,000 to 1.34 million.
- Available jobs in manufacturing, meanwhile, fell 67,000 to 428,000. They also dropped in retail and financial services.

I agree that EOs for DACA and for any possible declaration of a border emergency to use funds not passed by Congress for specific other purposes could not survive legal scrutiny.

Congress needs to act, requiring compromise.

I know you post in good faith and you've made me analyze some of my own positions/opinions on certain issues, but you lost me here.

Why would any American who is employed, or hopes to one day be employed, give a shit about an employer's need to increase the labor supply through foreign workers with the help of our good friends in Congress? I care about their labor needs being met through immigration about as much as they care about the salary needs of American workers being met. They're not special citizens entitled to unique treatment. I know this sentiment may strike them odd given their control over our immigration policies the last thirty plus years, but it's a growing sentiment and I have no doubt it will create issues with their bottom line.

My suggestion is that these woke capitalists stop manipulating the government to artificially increase the labor supply and instead start practicing what they preach - the efficiency of the free market!

Here's a couple things they can do to meet their labor demands:
1. Pay more.
2. Offer better benefits.

These companies have to learn to compete for people within the market, and if they can't compete, they don't deserve to exist. Now pull yourself up by your bootstraps, plutocrats!

 

[Legacy]

I know you post in good faith and you've made me analyze some of my own positions/opinions on certain issues, but you lost me here.

Why would any American who is employed, or hopes to one day be employed, give a shit about an employer's need to increase the labor supply through foreign workers with the help of our good friends in Congress? I care about their labor needs being met through immigration about as much as they care about the salary needs of American workers being met. They're not special citizens entitled to unique treatment. I know this sentiment may strike them odd given their control over our immigration policies the last thirty plus years, but it's a growing sentiment and I have no doubt it will create issues with their bottom line.

My suggestion is that these woke capitalists stop manipulating the government to artificially increase the labor supply and instead start practicing what they preach - the efficiency of the free market!

Here's a couple things they can do to meet their labor demands:
1. Pay more.
2. Offer better benefits.

These companies have to learn to compete for people within the market, and if they can't compete, they don't deserve to exist. Now pull yourself up by your bootstraps, plutocrats!

Apologies for any lack of clarity.

I don't think anyone who is here illegally should get special treatment over those who have entered legally and are pursuing citizenship - and certainly not over Americans. We have clear guidelines on the path to citizenship as well as criteria for deportation.

The two types of workers that could be covered by visa changes or improvements in the efficiency of processing employers requests are agricultural workers and high level STEM workers. For the most part, those employers cannot find Americans either willing or qualified. The Border and Immigration Act of 2013 addressed both with visa changes. Easing that pathway for temporary employment may cut into total illegal immigration as a byproduct. Irish#1 pointed out that the vetting slows the processing down.

Some farmers are offering more than minimum wage and benefits including health insurance to attract agricultural workers, but can't find Americans and still cannot enough foreign workers.

I've no doubt that in this economic environment of low unemployment and high job openings with increased job growth, we are in the situation where employers hiring American workers will or already have to pay more with better benefits to Americans but also to imagine if just even half of those illegals, for example, were deported or left, who would fill those jobs? That should not imply that illegals should get any special treatment, but that changes in the visa system may help. Job training or further education for Americans is another way.

We've lived for a long time with large corporations/companies expecting to get tax breaks from government for relocating or staying in areas, which you may or may not consider the efficiency of the free market or in government's role in facilitating economic growth.