The longer your compound capital, the less you need luck and the more you need Shrewdness.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 3
And yet there are still people who want to lie and gaslight and claim that the border isn't wide open. What is left to say? Liars gonna lie.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/southern-border-r...BBbbbbbbuttt it's Fox news!
Pictures don't lie.
Southern border hit by record number of migrant encounters in a single day as thousands flood into Texas
The 12,600 encounters is a new daily record for the border
The besieged U.S. southern border saw a record number of migrant encounters in a single day on Monday, as thousands flooded into Eagle Pass, Texas, amid a broader surge in recent weeks that has left authorities overwhelmed.
There were over 12,600 migrant encounters on Monday, Customs and Border Protection sources told Fox. That does not include the thousands still waiting for processing in the Del Rio Sector on Monday evening after a surge of migrants into Eagle Pass. The number includes over 11,000 illegal immigrant apprehensions and over 1,600 encountered at ports of entry.At some point even left wingers have to ask themselves, "Who benefits from all this?"
No. of Recommendations: 15
And yet there are still people who want to lie and gaslight and claim that the border isn't wide open.
If the border is wide open, how are there so many apprehensions?
I think your concerns over what other people say about the border merely stems from your use of a vague term like "wide open" to describe the problems. An "open" border typically involves unrestricted freedom of movement across the boundary. We have open borders between the states, the EU zone has open borders between the various countries for EU residents, etc. We don't have that, even along the southern border.
What we do have is border enforcement geared towards apprehending and processing those who cross without proper visas. That's not an open border. That policy worked pretty well when many (most?) of the folks crossing the border were single, mostly Mexican working age men travelling alone whose main goal was to try to enter undetected. It's not working well when many (most?) of the folks crossing the border are in family groups who make no effort to evade being apprehended, and are instead presenting asylum claims that we don't have the bandwidth to process timely.
Whether you think that's the right approach, or whether it's being enforced properly, is a separate question from whether the border is "wide open."
No. of Recommendations: 3
If the border is wide open, how are there so many apprehensions?sigh. Are those apprehensions the total number of people?
I think your concerns over what other people say about the border merely stems from your use of a vague term like "wide open" to describe the problems. An "open" border typically involves unrestricted freedom of movement across the boundary. We have open borders between the states, the EU zone has open borders between the various countries for EU residents, etc. We don't have that, even along the southern border.You're making a semantic argument here, and it doesn't fly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-bord...A new estimate this week put the growing population of “gotaways” at a sky-high 13 million, more than the population of every state except four: California, Texas, New York, and Florida.13 million people is the equivalent of adding 1.5 New York Cities to the United States. I'd call that out of control and a result of a wide open border. YMMV.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Are those apprehensions the total number of people?
No. Not every single person who crosses the border without a visa is apprehended. But if there's that many apprehensions, it conclusively demonstrates that the border is not "wide open." It means that there are rules in place that prohibit unauthorized crossings, that violation of those rules results in enforcement action, and that considerable resources are being devoted to those enforcement actions.
You're making a semantic argument here, and it doesn't fly.
Hey, you're the one whose complaining that other people don't accept the semantics you choose to use to describe the border. "Wide open" is not an accurate term, and if you use it rather than a phrase that is more correct, people will push back on it. That doesn't mean those people are lying, or are gaslighting you. Your terminology is incorrect, and it's not wrong or inappropriate to point that out.
I do not think there are many - even on the left - who would disagree that we have a border system that is woefully inadequate to handle very large numbers of people who are crossing to present asylum claims. It clearly is. The border system was set up to deal mostly with single people who were trying to cross without being apprehended, and if apprehended would (generally) be prepared to accept deportation. It was not set up to process tens of thousands of entire families turning themselves into customs agents with claims of asylum. Where the far left and the far right disagree, in large part, is in what should be done. The far right would like a physical barrier so that they are physically blocked from presenting their asylum claims in person, and for those who do get through to be detained rather than released to await their court dates; the far left would like massive amounts of resources allocated to the immigration processing system so that these cases can be processed super-fast, and for them to remain undetained pending that.
Neither of those approaches is possible without Congressional action, and neither is going to happen. Congress isn't going to devote the money for either massive detention facilities or tons more immigration courts. The left thinks its unjust to put tens of thousands of people in detention for years, when many (most?) have valid asylum claims and therefore aren't in the country illegally; the right thinks its unjust to allow the many (most?) who don't have valid asylum claims to get the benefit of a few years in-country before they can be processed for deportation.
All of that is a complicated deeply flawed situation at the southern border. What it is not is "wide open."
No. of Recommendations: 8
No, he's not. We do not have "open borders". Period. Not the northern border, and not the southern. That's just false.
Do we have a problem? Sure. No one is saying we don't. It's been a problem for
generations, although the applications for asylum have increased recently.
And then you link an article that used inflammatory words like "flooding", so I knew even before I checked:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner...Extreme right-wing, mixed factual. Personally, if it isn't "mostly factual" or higher, I ignore it. Right or left, doesn't matter.
For some actual facts/data:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/16...Recent article, but their data appears only to be up to 2021.
Some more data indicating 2.5 million "encounters" (which would mostly be apprehensions) this year.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/border-number....
Plus this interesting bit:
Less attention has been given, however, to the very significant change in migration patterns evident in the data, with migrants from beyond Mexico and northern Central America representing 51 percent of irregular arrivals at and between ports of entry—for the first time ever.
...
More migrants than ever before who are reaching the United States without prior authorization to enter are now arriving at ports of entry as a result of the parole programs and use of the CBP One app. The numbers arriving at ports of entry more than doubled from FY 2022, even as the Border Patrol had 160,598 fewer encounters of migrants crossing illegally in FY 2023 than the prior year—the result of policies to channel arrivals to ports of entry. In fact, without the increase at ports of entry, overall encounters in FY 2023 would not have surpassed those of the previous year.
No. of Recommendations: 8
No. of Recommendations: 2
We haven't ahd open borders for a long time. After the Mexican American war the border gradually took shape and we've had disputes. I remember the current conservative extreme focus on the border erupting in 2006. I remember a black Samoan I knew getting very upset about =- he was tuned into your daily dose of outrage, and his marriage had gone south his great RV store manager's job disappeared and he was living in his Sea Ray boat withj his clothes in the back seat of he pick up truck. Gone was the Corvette with the flip flop green sparkly color. It was interesting because the stats showed the Latin American workers were leaving and going home.
Suddenly, everyone was against immigrants, even legal ones. There's a place on the 405 up from the border in CA that's an inland checkpoint - with signs warning people that women and kids try and run across the 405 there fleeing border agents.
But with Title 42 gone we can't return people quickly across the border. The border has been a mess for some tome now - say 40 years at least. I advocate (again) that we establish a processing system withing Mexico and maybe another at the Guatemalan border. Keep them there and penalize them if they cross the border first.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Dope:
A new estimate this week put the growing population of “gotaways” at a sky-high 13 million... Cato studied the data and found that both the Bush and Obama administrations did a better job of enforcing immigration laws than the Trump administration.
And as for "interior" removals, the Trump administration also lagged behind.
The Obama administration removed 1,242,486 from the interior of the United States during its full eight years, averaging 155,311 removals per year. George W. Bush’s administration removed 819,964 illegal immigrants from the interior of the United States during the last 6 years of his administration, equal to 136,661 per year. If the percent of the illegal immigrant population deported annually during 2003–2006, before the big increase in 2007, held in 2001 and 2002, George W. Bush’s administration would have deported 1,000,653 from the interior of the United States with an annual average of 125,082.
In comparison, the Trump administration has only managed to remove 325,660 people from the interior of the United States during his entire term in office – less than 100,000 more than President Obama did in 2009 or President Bush did in 2008. On average, the Trump administration has only removed an average of 81,415 unlawful immigrants per year. By any measure, the Trump administration failed to meaningfully increase immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States.For republicans, the southern border is only an issue when a democrat is in the White House. And as has been pointed out repeatedly, presidents have limited authority and immigration reform requires a congressional solution. And as can be seen by the current negotiations, reaching a compromise that is acceptable to all parties is not an easy task (especially when republicans want immigration to be an election year cudgel).
https://www.cato.org/blog/interior-immigration-enf...
No. of Recommendations: 2
sigh. Are those apprehensions the total number of people?
Sigh is right..Laughable the left arguing the borders are not wide open.
Why are the Mayors of NYC and Chicago crying over the amount of illegals in their cities
they can no longer sustain and yet they keep pouring in? Begging dear president for help and getting the finger instead.
Millions and millions of illegals are already in America and have a free pass to go anywhere
in our country as they please, unvetted, carrying who knows what germs and disease.
How about the million or so now gottaways? God knows where they are and what criminal sort
they are. Why couldn’t they just come on in with the others who just moseyed on in?
President Biden....Don’t matter what country you are from, don’t care what disease you have,
don’t care you are a single draft age male(by the millions)coming here for who knows what reason,
don’t care you have a criminal record, no one is checking you...and most important,
VOTE DEMOCRAT, it’s all I ask of you. Yay, we love you Biden!
What me worry? Shrug, I got my covid shot, lol.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Me: "Are those apprehensions the total number of people?"
No. Not every single person who crosses the border without a visa is apprehended.
...and those numbers are absolutely out of control and have been for 3 years. .
But if there's that many apprehensions, it conclusively demonstrates that the border is not "wide open." It means that there are rules in place that prohibit unauthorized crossings, that violation of those rules results in enforcement action, and that considerable resources are being devoted to those enforcement actions.
What enforcement action? They're being handed phones with an app for a court date...that's years in advance. In the meantime they're being released into the United States.
Does that sound like enforcement to you?
I do not think there are many - even on the left - who would disagree that we have a border system that is woefully inadequate to handle very large numbers of people who are crossing to present asylum claims.
The left wing argument is that these people aren't being given amnesty immediately.
What it is not is "wide open."
We can agree to disagree. You've done quite well in arguing the semantics; however, the reality of the situation is that the system is overwhelmed and this has been allowed to happen on purpose. We are living in a Cloward-Piven strategy of bringing the immigration system to its knees and have created a situation where literally everyone throws up their hands and says "Well, what can you do? The problem is too big,". The only way out of that - and this WILL be argued by the democrat party at some point - is to issue a general amnesty. Presto! and Voila! No more illegal immigration problem.
In the meantime, literally millions of people are who knows where in the United States doing who knows what. If this isn't the functional definition of an open border I don't want to be around to see the textbook one.
No. of Recommendations: 13
What enforcement action? They're being handed phones with an app for a court date...that's years in advance. In the meantime they're being released into the United States.
Does that sound like enforcement to you?
Absolutely. It's like any other enforcement process. Most people who are arrested - and nearly all people who are arrested for nonviolent misdemeanors - are released pending their trial date. It's the most common scenario for an enforcement process for nonviolent nonfelonies.
The reality of the situation is that the system is overwhelmed and this has been allowed to happen on purpose.
Absolutely - it's been allowed to happen on purpose by both immigrant advocates and immigration hardliners.
The system is overwhelmed because there are five true things that are impossible to make work in an orderly way:
1. The law allows those presenting a prima facie claim of asylum to do so from within the U.S., and remain in the U.S. while it is pending. It is not illegal for them to be here.
2. The law allows, but does not require, adults to be detained pending their asylum claims.
3. The law does not allow children to be detained pending asylum claims for longer than one month - which means that when families arrive with children, within one month either the children have to be separated from their parents or the whole family released.
4. Congress has not allocated sufficient resources to process the current caseload of asylum claims faster than four years (on average).
5. Congress has not allocated sufficient resources to detain adults awaiting asylum claims for four years.
As long as these things are true, the system cannot deal with large numbers of asylees. Only Congress can change these things (except #3). Congress cannot change these things if there isn't an agreement. Neither side will agree to changes.
Immigration hardliners resist all attempts to make it easier for asylees to get the hearing they're entitled to quickly. Partially because around 40% of asylum claims are granted, and they want the process to be as difficult as possible - but mostly because chaos at the border is a useful tool to try to make the laws governing asylum more stringent, and disarray (bordering on cruelty) in handling migrants is perceived as a deterrent. Immigrant advocates want massive resources allocated to processing asylee claims, but resist all attempts to make it physically more difficult for migrants to reach the U.S., or to provide the resources to detain them during the pendency of asylum claims; mostly because they believe it is inhumane to lock people that have a valid asylum claim up in camps for years.
There's no "Cloward-Piven" strategy, or whatever conspiracy theory gets tossed around in conservative discussions. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by bureaucracy. The southern border enforcement system was set up to deal with single men trying to sneak into the country undetected so they could send money back home - the key was to catch them. It was not set up to deal with families who arrive at the border without trying to sneak in, but just cross and turn themselves into ICE and present an asylum claim. Because the current system doesn't work, the only way to get a system that works is to change it - but without an agreement in Congress, it can't be changed. And neither the immigration hawks or doves can agree on what to change it to.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Absolutely. It's like any other enforcement process. Most people who are arrested - and nearly all people who are arrested for nonviolent misdemeanors - are released pending their trial date. It's the most common scenario for an enforcement process for nonviolent nonfelonies.
Welp, again: of what we have is an example of "enforcement", then "nonenforcement" must be what the 3rd circle of hell looks like.
There's no "Cloward-Piven" strategy, or whatever conspiracy theory gets tossed around in conservative discussions.
LOL. So your argument boils down to the Biden people just being...incompetent morons. Okay. I can go with that.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Dope1: So your argument boils down to the Biden people just being...incompetent morons.
That's not at all what albaby1 said as he carefully explained to you about a half-dozen times the challenges and limitations of the current border situation but at least we've reached the "those other guys must be incompetent morons" stage of the discussion and the end must mercifully be near.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Welp, again: if what we have is an example of "enforcement", then "nonenforcement" must be what the 3rd circle of hell looks like.
I'm not sure what you think an effective "enforcement" strategy is. Again, it's easy to enforce against people who don't present an asylum claim - you can just throw them out. But people who present an asylum claim aren't in the country illegally. They're allowed, under the law, to stay here pending their claim.
So you only have two choices - lock them up for four years (which means you have to house, feed, clothe, and give them medical care in camps while simultaneously taking care of their children and tracking those kids with 100% effectiveness) or allow them to be outside of detention during the pendency of their claim. Congress has not, and will not, allocate the funds to handle that level of detention for four years; nor will they allocate the funds to reduce the processing time of the claims below four years. So what's your strategy?
So your argument boils down to the Biden people just being...incompetent morons. Okay. I can go with that.
No, it's not. They're not incompetent morons. There's no way to competently handle the situation unless Congress acts.
Once more, with feeling - asylees are permitted to remain in the U.S. pending their claim being heard. It takes four and a half years (on average) for a claim to be heard because Congress hasn't allocated more funding for immigration courts. You can't lock up the asylees for four and a half years because Congress hasn't allocated the funding for detention facilities capable of handling that and there's the problem of what to do with the children. You can't physically block them from entering the U.S. and presenting their asylum claim, you don't have the legal authority to use physical violence to turn them away.
Again, you have a system of laws and Congressional budgeting that was set up to solve a different problem. Unless and until Congress acts, the Administration can't fix it. It's not due to their incompetence - it's due to them not being able to change the laws and budgetary allocations.
No. of Recommendations: 3
when many (most?) of the folks crossing the border are in family groups who make no effort to evade being apprehended, and are instead presenting asylum claims that we don't have the bandwidth to process timely. - albaby
----------------
Families??? The vast vast vast majority of videos don't back this up. Not too many women either. Mostly young men 18-30. These are the ones lined up for processing by Border Security.
You do see videos of families crossing the river, and I get that these are more heart wrenching, but in sheer numbers lined up for their free cell phone and plane ticket to anywhere, they are most young males.
The other things that strikes me about the immigrants lined up for processing is how well dressed they are, nice shoes, clean, colorful clothing, seemingly happy and well fed. Not sunburned or gaunt, no tattered clothes or no one barefoot as you might expect after someone has endured great hardships to get here.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Again, you have a system of laws and Congressional budgeting that was set up to solve a different problem. Unless and until Congress acts,...
So Dope was correct, only he identified the wrong group of morons. It's the ones on Capitol Hill.**
**And I fully realize that neither side wants to compromise, and the right especially doesn't really want this issue to go away because it is a GOTV issue for them.
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, it's not. They're not incompetent morons. There's no way to competently handle the situation unless Congress acts.
Yes!
But that is not what the Trumpers want to hear. And they will get what they want to hear from all the usual totally unreliable 'news' sources. It's all Biden's/Democrat's fault.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Families??? The vast vast vast majority of videos don't back this up. Not too many women either. Mostly young men 18-30. These are the ones lined up for processing by Border Security.
This. Scads of military aged men, including a lot of refugees from well-known central American countries like China.
No. of Recommendations: 3
the only way to get a system that works is to change it - but without an agreement in Congress, it can't be changed. And neither the immigration hawks or doves can agree on what to change it to. - albaby
--------------
Trump had squeezed the torrent down into a trickle. He not only accomplished this under current law but with the added headwind of progressives and congress and RINO's fighting him every step of the way. I would gladly trade that for what we have right now. It appears most voters feel that way too. Sorry.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So what's your strategy? - albaby
---------------
A Republican President.
No. of Recommendations: 7
The vast vast vast majority of videos don't back this up. Not too many women either. Mostly young men 18-30. These are the ones lined up for processing by Border Security.If you're getting your information from videos - rather than reading it - you're pretty likely to be getting an incomplete picture in general. Just as a rule of thumb, on almost any topic. Video can only give you an anecdotal snapshot, rather than incorporate
all data about a subject. And because it's only a snapshot, you run the risk of getting a skewed view of the subject. That's the reason why perceptions about the Gaza conflict right now show a marked skew among people who get most of their information from videos on Tiktok, for example - they're just seeing image after image of things you can take new videos of (destruction in Gaza) rather than things you can't (like, say, hostages).
Anyway, here's a link to the complete demographic information:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-...You can see the proportion of families rising year after year - the most recent figures have single adults travelling alone at 51% of the total, and families/unaccompanied children making up the remaining 49%.
This shift really dates back to 2019, though. The current CPB website with the graphs only goes back to the beginning of the Administration - but the below link has the info in data form. In 2018, the CPB apprehended 239K single adults and 107K family unit members. In 2019, those figures were 302K single adults and 474K family unit members. A complete reversal in the demographics of the border. COVID disrupted that pattern a great deal, but we see it in today's figures as well. During the Obama years, family crossings were invariably less than 100K - they haven't been less than that since.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Trump had squeezed the torrent down into a trickle. Not really.
In the last pre-pandemic year, the torrent was very much a torrent. 474K family unit members, and 300K single adults:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migra...What he was able to do in 2020 is use
health regulations as a barrier to immigrant entry. That was the Title 42 program. He was basically able to exclude migrants as potential carriers of COVID.
That's not a sustainable option - the COVID emergency is over, and SCOTUS precedent on the use of generalized health provisions to try to expand federal power make it impossible to do anything like that again.
If you think Trump actually has the ability to solve this problem if he's elected, you're going to be sorely disappointed if that comes to pass....
No. of Recommendations: 8
A Republican President.
How would that help? Family migration was running rampant in Trump's last pre-COVID year, and a Republican President in 2024 isn't going to be able to implement either the Title 42 measures or get the Mexican government's accession to a "Remain in Mexico" program.
Trump oversaw a massive increase in immigrant volumes from when he took office through 2019. It was only the pandemic, and the health measures used to restrict migration, that allowed him to do anything to address the problem.
No. of Recommendations: 6
bighairymike:
Trump had squeezed the torrent down into a trickle...He not only accomplished this under current law... Hilarious.
What slowed asylum seekers was COVID-19. First, 1,000 to 2,000 Americans dying from COVID-19 everyday tamped down the enthusiasm of asylum seekers to travel to the U.S. border; second, Title 42, a
new order from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prevent the spread of the virus allowed U.S. authorities to immediately remove migrants, including people seeking asylum, without dealing with any of the rules and regulations pervious presidents had to follow.
And as I showed upthread, Trump was the least effective president at "interior" removals going back to the Bush the Lesser administration.
https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=112170795How's life in the cult these days?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Excellent summary Albaby. Kudos!
No. of Recommendations: 3
So what's your strategy?
Make illegal immigration illegal again. I assume most people are aware that we have laws against that sort of thing, but maybe not.
On top of that, reform the amnesty process.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Make illegal immigration illegal again. I assume most people are aware that we have laws against that sort of thing, but maybe not.
On top of that, reform the amnesty process.
I didn't mean generalities, and I didn't mean wishing for something that's beyond your control.
Seriously, imagine you're in charge of Homeland Security. Consider a situation where a family, with a minor child, wades the Rio Grande and turns themselves in to the Border Patrol - willingly - in order to submit an amnesty claim. What specifically would you do differently than the Administration is doing?
You don't have the power to "reform" the amnesty process - only Congress can do that. The family is entitled to a hearing, and they can lawfully remain in the United States until they get it. You don't have the funds to set up massive detention facilities for hundreds of thousands of people, where you'd have to feed and clothe and shelter and provide medical attention to them. You can't keep the minor child in detention for more than a month, you don't have anywhere to place the child, nor do you have the resources to conclusively keep track of a separated minor child. You don't have the funds to speed up the immigration hearing process, nor do you have the funds - or the legal ability - to set up barriers along much of the border. You don't have the legal authority to use force to repel migrants from entering the U.S. And you don't have the Title 42 medical powers from Covid any more.
So in all seriousness....what's your plan? Illegal immigration is illegal today - the problems we face are the mechanics of enforcement given that everyone involved is entitled to a court hearing before you can deport them. So what's your solution? What's the policy that you think the Biden Administration should be implementing that they're not doing.
No. of Recommendations: 4
If you think Trump actually has the ability to solve this problem if he's elected, you're going to be sorely disappointed if that comes to pass....
There will always be someone else to blame. To quote Trump: "I don't take responsibility at all". [re: Coronavirus fumble]
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you think Trump actually has the ability to solve this problem if he's elected, you're going to be sorely disappointed if that comes to pass....
But it is clear Trump supporters mostly have no idea about that. They don't want to hear it and they won't hear it on their favorite choices of media. This is a big problem.
No. of Recommendations: 13
So your argument boils down to the Biden people just being...incompetent morons.
That's not at all what albaby1 said as he carefully explained to you about a half-dozen times
No matter the number or length of threads with a conservative extremist, atrollisatrollisatroll.
I do appreciate Albaby's concise insights. In this thread, he takes both sides of the aisle to task for failing to come up with a workable solution.
That should resonate with anybody not blinded by partisanship.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I note the OP has responded to posts AFTER this one, but not this one. A direct challenge, and you (albaby) received "crickets". Which tells me that -at least on this topic- the OP has no more idea than anyone else.
Given the constraints that currently exist, there is no option other than what we are doing. Not without Congressional action. Neither the people on the far left nor the far right want to hear that, but it's a fact. A fact that moderates realize and understand, even if it also frustrates us.
