Democrats don't want to take their guns away

[GuanoLoco]

The hilarious thing is how well the chart you posted lines up with the dates that the border wall in California was constructed. But you didn't know that, of course.

What’s even more hilarious is your limited grasp of geography and your lack of data provided to support your claim.

Migrants simply flow like water to the path of least resistance. One assessment of the CA wall(s) that I read were that they simpply made Arizona a a more popular crossing point.

[GuanoLoco]

Building the wall is not a political move for President Trump. It has become a necessity for the safety and security of our border and our nation. The dems are against him, so what is he supposed to do that would be effective at securing our southern border thats not just just political BS. It amazes me that our country is being invaded by people and drugs and yet there is resistance to effectively stopping it.

There’s a simple solution to every complex problem. Unfortunately it doesn’t work.

[Alpha Sierra]

Please show me on the graph where the emergency is.





Q: How is Trump’s “Wall” going to help with the more pressing issue of Visa Overstays?





Q: Which countries are leading in terms of Visa Overstays?

Your use of "data" is laughingly amateurish......

Number of border apprehensions does not correlate to number of illegal border crossings. Orders from DC, budgets, staffing, and any other number of reasons can easily account for the decline.

By building a border all from one end to the other, the number of resources dedicated to border enforcement is reduced and those resources can then be applied to arrest visa jumpers.

Your hatred of Trump is insatiable, isn't it?

[GuanoLoco]

Your use of "data" is laughingly amateurish......

Number of border apprehensions does not correlate to number of illegal border crossings.

Really? Let’s Fact Check your assertion.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/il...on-statistics/

How many people are crossing the border illegally?
There’s no official measure of how many people succeed in illegally crossing the border, but authorities use the number of apprehensions to gauge changes in illegal immigration. Apprehensions on the Southwest border peaked in 2000 at 1.64 million and have generally declined since, totaling 396,579 in 2018.

Q: Well, that seeems to fly in the face of your ‘laughingly amateurish’ claim, doesn’t it. What alternate method of estimation of illegal border crossings would you suggest? Maybe you can find something from Faux News.

Your hatred of Trump is insatiable, isn't it?

It’s apparently not as insatiable as your hatred of actual data backed by references and meaningful debate.

[Alpha Sierra]

Really? Let’s Fact Check your assertion.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/il...on-statistics/


Q: Well, that seeems to fly in the face of your ‘laughingly amateurish’ claim, doesn’t it. What alternate method of estimation of illegal border crossings would you suggest?

EVERYTHING in that "factcheck" article leads to ESTIMATES.....no hard data. Estimate is just another word for guess.

Do you deny that the number of border crossing arrests can go down due to many factors beyond the number of border crossers?

How about you find me the statistical correlation tests done on the dataset of illegal border crossers vs number of arrests?

Talk about gullible....LOL

[GuanoLoco]

EVERYTHING in that "factcheck" article leads to ESTIMATES.....no hard data. Estimate is just another word for guess.

Do you deny that the number of border crossing arrests can go down due to many factors beyond the number of border crossers?

How about you find me the statistical correlation tests done on the dataset of illegal border crossers vs number of arrests?

Talk about gullible....LOL

Well, in the real world, there are lots of things that we do not have hard data on - like unreported illegal border crossings that did not result in an apprehension. What CAN be done is to make reasonable estimates based on the most relevant hard data that is available. The best hard data available is ... wait for it ... the number of border apprehensions.

I don’t understand why you are having trouble with this concept. Also, you have yet to offer a better approach.

Of course border crossing arrests (apprehensions) will vary based on many factors.

Other than being argumentative, what is your point?

[fixer]

Your use of "data" is laughingly amateurish......

Number of border apprehensions does not correlate to number of illegal border crossings. Orders from DC, budgets, staffing, and any other number of reasons can easily account for the decline.

That is a good point I hadn't considered. Very good point. Thanks.

[BaiHu]

Let's not forget that the absolute destruction of Venezuela (proxy/failed state) is starting to overwhelm South America (shaky states), which is connected to Mexico (cartel state), which is also connected to the southern border. IE, even if your data is 100% correct, it doesn't allow for the newest data set.

[HCM]

Apologies for the slowness of my reply - I've not really had a moment to visit P-F since writing the post you quoted.

I feel that it sets a dangerous precedent in that Trump is, in my view, at least, using an emergency declaration purely as a way to get around the will of congress. He's as much as admitted it himself when he said "I don't have to do this." That, to me, is an admission that it's not actually an emergency.

It also does not seem to line up with this clause from the statute you linked, both because it doesn't seem to be a legitimate emergency and because it doesn't seem to actually require the use of the armed forces except in that that's where he seems to want to pull the money from:

"(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces"

Admittedly I am not a lawyer, so my opinion on legal text means roughly nil, but that's the way I personally see it. I'm somewhere between neutral on the wall and for the wall, but I think the way the president is going about getting it built is incorrect at best, and potentially politically damaging to the country's future at worst.

It’s no different than Obama creating DACA out of thin air as a way to get around the will of congress.

[olstyn]

It’s no different than Obama creating DACA out of thin air as a way to get around the will of congress.

No dispute that DACA went around congress (and should not have), but it's different in that DACA was not created by a declaration of national emergency.