Border Security

[Winehole23]

The wall is for people who cross the border illegally. They are undo ented. You're playing a game of semantics. You're comparing people who won't leave the store after closing to people who broke in through the back door. One is illegal trespass while the other is breaking and entering.

Your idiosyncratic ethical scruple makes no difference to ICE: both are eligible for deportation.

[DMC]

I think he's saying that right now, illegal trespass is a much bigger problem than breaking and entering such that it doesn't make sense to focus on a solution that only solves the breaking and entering problem.

Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate to that argument, one fair point is that building a fence to stop illegals from crossing the border isn't mutually exclusive with enforcing immigration laws against those with overstayed visas.

That's true. However securing borders and policing visas are two separate issues, both fall under the "illegal immigration" umbrella.

[DMC]

Your idiosyncratic ethical scruple makes no difference to ICE: both are eligible for deportation.

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make. The problem isn't the number of deportations required. The problem is the number of undo ented immigrants who game the system in the US. Someone who gets a visa has been somewhat vetted, they just overstay the visa. Anyone can just walk across though and be undo ented to exist in the US, and they can bring children, and no one can even really know if it's their own kids.

There's a significant difference between overstaying a visa and breaking into a country.

[tlongII]

They arrive on airplanes with visas issued by the US State Department.

They will never be at the volume of immigration from south of the border. Logistically it doesn’t compute.

[Winehole23]

Seems like a significant amount still cross the border. That's not really a good argument tbh.

You still have none for a wall.

[Winehole23]

They will never be at the volume of immigration from south of the border. Logistically it doesn’t compute.

Visa skippers already exceed that volume, too bad if you can't comprehend.

[tlongII]

Visa skippers already exceed that volume, too bad if you can't comprehend.

Visa skippers from Asia exceed the volume of immigrants from south of the border? Really? That’s ridiculous.

[Will Hunting]

They will never be at the volume of immigration from south of the border. Logistically it doesn’t compute.

It's not a matter of opinion that in recent years we've had more illegal immigration from expired visas than illegal crossing from Mexico, it's simply fact. Back in the early 2000s when the housing bubble caused a temporary e in demand for construction labor that wasn't the case at all but it is now.

[DarrinS]

With respect to H1B visa program, we prioritize getting their best people, with vastly more slots given to advanced degree holders. I forget what the cap is -- a couple hundred thousand, iirc.

[DMC]

These two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both, police visas and secure the borders. Policing visas directly confronts individual offenders. Securing borders prohibits a higher degree of future undo ented offenders. If you can do ent offenders, you can prosecute them. You cannot prosecute what is undo ented. While both are problems, they are not addressed in the same way. You don't have to solve all problems to have a working solution for a problem.

If you're a home owner and you're leasing your home - you have a tenant who hasn't paid rent in 3 months. You are evicting the tenant through legal means. They will eventually be taken out of the house and they are known to exist, you know who they are, you at one time approved their application. Contrast that with another home you own and lease out, that had the back door breached and people living there undo ented. In the 1st instance you have legal recourse, in the second you don't even know they are there, you only know that someone is there at some point and the damage that was done. You have no real legal recourse. You build stronger doors or you buy a home in a gated or better community or something along those lines. In the eviction notice case, you could simply make more stringent standards for acceptance if it's a recurrent issue.

[Nathan89]

Visa skippers already exceed that volume, too bad if you can't comprehend.

Nothing in my statement indicated that I didn't comprehend that tbh.

[Winehole23]

You're tlong?

Thanks for sharing.

[Pavlov]

These two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both, police visas and secure the borders. Policing visas directly confronts individual offenders. Securing borders prohibits a higher degree of future undo ented offenders. If you can do ent offenders, you can prosecute them. You cannot prosecute what is undo ented. While both are problems, they are not addressed in the same way. You don't have to solve all problems to have a working solution for a problem.

If you're a home owner and you're leasing your home - you have a tenant who hasn't paid rent in 3 months. You are evicting the tenant through legal means. They will eventually be taken out of the house and they are known to exist, you know who they are, you at one time approved their application. Contrast that with another home you own and lease out, that had the back door breached and people living there undo ented. In the 1st instance you have legal recourse, in the second you don't even know they are there, you only know that someone is there at some point and the damage that was done. You have no real legal recourse. You build stronger doors or you buy a home in a gated or better community or something along those lines. In the eviction notice case, you could simply make more stringent standards for acceptance if it's a recurrent issue.

Are you in favor of a full 2000 mile border wall?

[Winehole23]

Visa skippers from Asia exceed the volume of immigrants from south of the border? Really? That’s ridiculous.

All visa jumpers. I posted support upstream. Crossing the southern border has been the number two way to get in for about ten years.

[Winehole23]

I know it's hard to change your manner of thinking when facts change. It's not 2007 anymore.

[DarrinS]

I agree that a border wall would be useless against people not crossing the southern border.

[DarrinS]

I also agree that we don't have an epidemic of violent gangs of PhD's from India.

[tlongII]

It's not a matter of opinion that in recent years we've had more illegal immigration from expired visas than illegal crossing from Mexico, it's simply fact. Back in the early 2000s when the housing bubble caused a temporary e in demand for construction labor that wasn't the case at all but it is now.

False.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/rese...d-region-birth

[Winehole23]

I also agree that we don't have an epidemic of violent gangs of PhD's from India.

We also don't have an epidemic from Central America. Central American illegal immigrants have a lower arrest rate than all US natives and nearly all other national categories.

[Will Hunting]

These two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both, police visas and secure the borders. Policing visas directly confronts individual offenders. Securing borders prohibits a higher degree of future undo ented offenders. If you can do ent offenders, you can prosecute them. You cannot prosecute what is undo ented. While both are problems, they are not addressed in the same way. You don't have to solve all problems to have a working solution for a problem.

They are mutually exclusive in that we only have a finite amount of resources to spend on enforcing immigration laws so we want to make sure they're used in the most effective/efficient way, but I don't disagree with the gist of what you're saying. I just don't think illegal immigration over the Southern border is currently that big of a problem, and I don't think adding an incremental ~1300 miles of wall (700 of the 2000 miles already being walled) accomplishes much in further deterring illegal immigration to the point where it's worth the cost (you're smart enough to know that the cost of said wall would be more than $5B ). It's an oversimplified and extremely inefficient solution to what's currently a small problem.

The returns diminish pretty quickly when you start walling the unpopulated areas that are already difficult to cross because of natural conditions (i.e., the Sonoran Desert border in Arizona where people have died trying to cross by foot, or the wilderness areas in CA with mountains that make it impossible to cross by vehicle and difficult to cross by foot), especially because of terrain that makes a wall more expensive and the environmental implications a giant wall that separates wildlife and plants has on those areas.

I'm all for walling or adding some kind of barrier to the population centers or other areas that we know had a high amount of illegal immigration/activity 15 years ago, but I think a combination of the Bush and Obama administrations already did so. Beyond that, the more effective deterrent to illegal immigration from Mexico imo is a heightened effort to make it more difficult for employers to hire illegals and more efficient forms of surveillance in areas where a wall doesn't make sense (radar, drones, etc.)

[Will Hunting]

False.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/rese...d-region-birth

Can you site the part where it either says (or shows data) that we have more illegal immigration from the Southern border than we have from expired visas?

[Will Hunting]

Nevermind, you're pointing to existing illegal immigration population (which a wall does absolutely nothing to fix) rather than where we currently get more illegal immigrants (the question that's actually relevant for a wall discussion).

[Will Hunting]

from the link Tlong himself posted:

During the 1990s, the unauthorized population rose substantially, doubling from 3.5 million to 7 million. It continued to increase during the 2000s, reaching a peak of 12.2 million in 2007, then fell to 11 million during and after the recession. While Mexicans comprised a majority of unauthorized immigrants throughout these years, between 2007 and 2013 the population declined by about 1 million. In contrast, unauthorized populations from Central America, Asia, and Africa grew rapidly after 2000—with the numbers from Central America and Asia tripling and from Africa doubling. Countries significantly represented in these increases include China, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, and South Korea.

So for the last 10 years, the illegal Mexican population in this country has actually gone DOWN, and the only immigration we've had from the Southern border has been Central American immigrants (unless you think the people from Africa and Asia illegaly in this country got here by crossing the Southern border ).

[Spurminator]

You're tlong?

Thanks for sharing.

Would not at all surprise me, tbh

[koriwhat]

funny how the loons in here want to bring the president down for supposed criminal activity but on the flipside these same loons want to let criminals invade our country while breaking numerous laws in the process. what ing hypocrites yall are tbh.