-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
The Illegal Immigration Non-Crisis in the USA
- Thread starter cots
- Start date
- Views 29,778
- Replies 460
- Likes 9
The Boston Tea party didnt support the law. 
Police in certain law cases have whats called an area of discretion - where even though a crime was committed, they might not persecute a certain offense.
The law system in many cases is just that (and extrajudicial financial agreements ) simply to reduce the number of cases.
But you have to be specific. You cant say "are you for, or against the law" because in that case I'm for the law.
If you rephrase that into "are you for persecuting every illegal alien that does nothing more unlawful than live in the united states for 10 years" - than, no I'm not for that - even though you cant make "official exceptions".
Here is the "fudge factor" thats still part of your system:
"In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people."
"Between 1997 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 870,000 people were deported from the United States."
"Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2 million people were deported from the United States."
"Between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 2.9 million people were deported from the United States.[4]"
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_and_removal_from_the_United_States
Currently the illegal immigration rate is estimated at 500.000 people a year.
Removal rates even during Bush or Obama were lower than that. (With Obama they were higher in comparison, because the average illegal immigration rate spiked way above 500k/year during that time).
So your illegal immigrant population is always growing on average. It never wasnt.
When migration pressure from south american states was not that high, you didn't even call it a problem. Now it is - but you simply cant make the problem go away "by law". So the law withstanding, you have still to deal with those populations.
(Looking at the numbers, forced deportation might actually be cheaper in the US; than in Europe, ...)
It also shows, that it is an issue the US is dealing with. So no action also isnt a possibility.
Its just that simply fetishising illegal = bad, doenst help either way, so why would you do it in lets say - an individual case? As someone thats not working for a deportation department.
Police in certain law cases have whats called an area of discretion - where even though a crime was committed, they might not persecute a certain offense.The law system in many cases is just that (and extrajudicial financial agreements
) simply to reduce the number of cases.But you have to be specific. You cant say "are you for, or against the law" because in that case I'm for the law.
If you rephrase that into "are you for persecuting every illegal alien that does nothing more unlawful than live in the united states for 10 years" - than, no I'm not for that - even though you cant make "official exceptions".
Here is the "fudge factor" thats still part of your system:
"In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people."
"Between 1997 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 870,000 people were deported from the United States."
"Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2 million people were deported from the United States."
"Between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 2.9 million people were deported from the United States.[4]"
src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_and_removal_from_the_United_States
Currently the illegal immigration rate is estimated at 500.000 people a year.
Removal rates even during Bush or Obama were lower than that. (With Obama they were higher in comparison, because the average illegal immigration rate spiked way above 500k/year during that time).
So your illegal immigrant population is always growing on average. It never wasnt.
When migration pressure from south american states was not that high, you didn't even call it a problem.
Now it is - but you simply cant make the problem go away "by law". So the law withstanding, you have still to deal with those populations.(Looking at the numbers, forced deportation might actually be cheaper in the US; than in Europe, ...)
It also shows, that it is an issue the US is dealing with. So no action also isnt a possibility.
Its just that simply fetishising illegal = bad, doenst help either way, so why would you do it in lets say - an individual case? As someone thats not working for a deportation department.
Last edited by notimp,
Here is why you have so many deportations, many of your illegal immigrants are from Mexico. Thats not that far away...
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
Read this, its a good exploration of the issue.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/28/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/
Read this, its a good exploration of the issue.
Last edited by notimp,
What's going on with immigrant-holding and child-separation in this country is purely because of Trump and the Republicans.
D
Deleted-481927
Guest
I don't support it generally speaking - BUT in situations for asylum, where you can't apply from ur home country I support it.
They uploaded a picture of children in cages blaming Trump but then quickly took it down because they realized it was from 2014 when Obama was president.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1695534001
They say Obama had more humane conditions for the illegals then Trump. But then why use a picture from the Obama era? Even if it was a mistake. They used the picture because the conditions looked bad, which they tried to pin on Trump. After using that picture they can’t then now say well we may have used the pictures because conditions looks horrible but they were better treated.
They are willing to call out Trump but not Obama. Only this picture is bad if it’s from Trump era essentially. But now with Obama, he’s more humane. So these bad looking picture are humane now.
This isn’t he first time they’ve done this either. They uploaded pictures from the Obama era before.
Last edited by SG854,
The truth is, you can vote for whoever you want, the differences are minor.
The Greeks learned that democracy is an illusion after a far-leftist was no different than the previous conservative government. I learned it around the time I came of age when the worker's party betrayed the worker and their socialist ideals (not increasing the value-added tax was one of their key demands but when they came to power they increased it even more than their accused opponents had planned).
You already mentioned Obama's dealing with illegals. He also announced the pivot to China. Even if Cortez came to power next, there wouldn't be much of a change. You'd still be Iran's arch enemy, buddies with the Saudis etc.
The Greeks learned that democracy is an illusion after a far-leftist was no different than the previous conservative government. I learned it around the time I came of age when the worker's party betrayed the worker and their socialist ideals (not increasing the value-added tax was one of their key demands but when they came to power they increased it even more than their accused opponents had planned).
You already mentioned Obama's dealing with illegals. He also announced the pivot to China. Even if Cortez came to power next, there wouldn't be much of a change. You'd still be Iran's arch enemy, buddies with the Saudis etc.
Last edited by UltraDolphinRevolution,
Protecting criminals from their own idiocy is not our responsibility. I do feel really bad for the children, but their parents chose to endanger them, not our shitty government. The parents need to be held accountable and accept responsibility.
Our government absolutely endangered children and needs to be held responsible.
They are not seeking amnesty in my opinion. These people are too stupid to even know what amnesty means. It's an invasion, and as such, our resources built for dealing with their influx decades ago are currently overwhelmed.
Many of them are objectively seeking asylum.
It's not an invasion, and it's prejudice to call a group of people stupid.
Last edited by Lacius,
The ACLU has 1,000’s of documentation from the freedom of information act of widespread abuse of child immigrants in U.S. custody.
The dates in the report are from 2009-2014 during Obama’s era.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases...-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody
Obama was known as the Deporter-In-Chief a name not given lightly and for no reason.
Obama Administration deported 2.5 million, the highest number for any President ever. He deported more people in 8 years in office then all the previous 20th century presidents combined. His immigration budget was 18 million which is 3 million more then all the major domestic law enforcement agencies combined.
Obama said deportation were people with criminal records, felons, threats to national security. But a study in 2014 says that two-thirds, the majority of deportations were for minor infractions like traffic violations or no criminal record at all.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...tions-follow-minor-crimes-data-shows.amp.html
And this snopes article says that under the Obama Administration they placed children with human traffickers. That they were handed of to a human trafficking ring.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-obama-administration-children-human-traffickers/
Last edited by SG854,
But Obama, but Trump, but Obama, but Trump.
Do you even realize that the reasons for why stuff changed under Obama and Bush, are already on this page? Why are you continuing on with stupid namecalling despite it?
So the "invasion" (that is no invasion) began under Clinton, and under Obama deportation increased to a temporary high - which is why he became "deporter in chief" (entirely useless term), because he deported about 140.000 people more a year than the previous president. But then illegal migration numbers were almost double of those today in some of those years as well. From a "base level" of 500.000 a year.
Overall numbers are steeply declining since 2007 (that was before Obama) but from a high base level.
Conditions in camps probably werent great under the Obama administration, but at least you had no (?) publicized cases of children being seperated, held in cages, and the government having forgotten who their parents were, because they didnt think to ask before seperating them.
Thats plain and utter stupidity mixed with cruelty. Thats illegal as well. And that kind of sounds like a thing that stupid people who already are desensetized or racist would do, because they were now thinking they could - because the president was one of them. No proof, but it 'has that smell'. When orders from courts came to reunite them, the fuckers really just responded with "we havent got the information". I mean fuck.
Probably nothing Trump 'did' by anything other than settng a moral example.
Excuses, that the problem is so much worse currently (in terms of the amount of people coming in) are wrong. And were wrong during Obama. The most people came in illegally under Bush actually.
Excuses, that the issue is that border patrol is underfunded are wrong, because the problem existed on the same level it does currently since 2002 (Bush). (Look at the graphs, If you cant interpret them - you have to listen to people who can, you cant "intuitively feel" your way to be on the right side of "truth" here.)
Excuses, that the problem is becoming worse as we speak are wrong because the numnbers are actually leveling out.
Ideas to build a 'wall' are actually stupid, the mere idea of people dying at the wall in great numbers would 'shock' american society even more than 9/11 did. Probably. So the wanted effect of a wall would be that of a 'signal' (PR) - and you can have that easier, than by building a wall. Part of the mistreatment of children, is also exactly that - a signal - until very recently you werent stupid enough though to actually "loose" parents of children.
Excuses, that the parents should have known, that that was coming are wrong, because no civilized country in the world does that. Even courts say - you cant, that what you did was illegal and plain stupidity.
So - if numbers of illegal immigrants were declining (and trafficers currently resort to raising demand, by telling potential buyers, that its now or never, because Trump will build wall), why has it become such an important topic under the current administration? They arent declining fast enough?
Probably not - probably more likely, because raising fear and uncertainty - is about the only thing the current administration - kind of does well.
Also - by doing those "america first" deals with Mexico - you added to the issue. You realize that? People are 'invading' because they can't get decently paying jobs in the border areas, or even center mexico the draw here actually comes from the wealth gap. So if you dont want to make Texas poorer - which I'm sure you dont want - you have to actually help to make mexico richer. America first is the opposite of that.
Now at least under Trump the number of illegal immigrants is 'remaining steady' despite his politics. It kind of stopped declining though.
Look at this graph:
The decline of illegal migrants from mexico can be interpreted as a result of Trumps "tough hand border programs". But the incline of immigrants from other countries can very well be interpreted as a result of "america first" economic policies. So Trump actually kind of increased the issue - so he could talk about it more?
So he could say, that border programs are historically underfunded? When the problem was highest in 2005 (Bush)?
Also - if you read up on it - the number of illegal immigrants in your country streadily increased under all previous (even more than three) administrations (including deportations). So its structural. The answer has to be structural as well (economic programs with mexico).
Or wall. But wall doesnt work. It would just be blocking your view of continuing tragedy. And it wouldnt even do a very good job at that, because journalists would use ladders to take pictures. Or migrants woudl send them via Wifi. (The wall concept is really that stupid. Those people tracked through desserts for months, do you really think a very long - but not that high border wall would stop them? In terms of signaling, that you dont want them - it would produce a decline. But you could have that cheaper - without loosing your humanity. Look at the graph again.)
Do you even realize that the reasons for why stuff changed under Obama and Bush, are already on this page? Why are you continuing on with stupid namecalling despite it?
So the "invasion" (that is no invasion) began under Clinton, and under Obama deportation increased to a temporary high - which is why he became "deporter in chief" (entirely useless term), because he deported about 140.000 people more a year than the previous president. But then illegal migration numbers were almost double of those today in some of those years as well. From a "base level" of 500.000 a year.
Overall numbers are steeply declining since 2007 (that was before Obama) but from a high base level.
Conditions in camps probably werent great under the Obama administration, but at least you had no (?) publicized cases of children being seperated, held in cages, and the government having forgotten who their parents were, because they didnt think to ask before seperating them.
Thats plain and utter stupidity mixed with cruelty. Thats illegal as well. And that kind of sounds like a thing that stupid people who already are desensetized or racist would do, because they were now thinking they could - because the president was one of them. No proof, but it 'has that smell'. When orders from courts came to reunite them, the fuckers really just responded with "we havent got the information". I mean fuck.
Probably nothing Trump 'did' by anything other than settng a moral example.
Excuses, that the problem is so much worse currently (in terms of the amount of people coming in) are wrong. And were wrong during Obama. The most people came in illegally under Bush actually.
Excuses, that the issue is that border patrol is underfunded are wrong, because the problem existed on the same level it does currently since 2002 (Bush). (Look at the graphs, If you cant interpret them - you have to listen to people who can, you cant "intuitively feel" your way to be on the right side of "truth" here.)
Excuses, that the problem is becoming worse as we speak are wrong because the numnbers are actually leveling out.
Ideas to build a 'wall' are actually stupid, the mere idea of people dying at the wall in great numbers would 'shock' american society even more than 9/11 did. Probably. So the wanted effect of a wall would be that of a 'signal' (PR) - and you can have that easier, than by building a wall. Part of the mistreatment of children, is also exactly that - a signal - until very recently you werent stupid enough though to actually "loose" parents of children.
Excuses, that the parents should have known, that that was coming are wrong, because no civilized country in the world does that. Even courts say - you cant, that what you did was illegal and plain stupidity.
So - if numbers of illegal immigrants were declining (and trafficers currently resort to raising demand, by telling potential buyers, that its now or never, because Trump will build wall), why has it become such an important topic under the current administration? They arent declining fast enough?
Probably not - probably more likely, because raising fear and uncertainty - is about the only thing the current administration - kind of does well.
Also - by doing those "america first" deals with Mexico - you added to the issue. You realize that? People are 'invading' because they can't get decently paying jobs in the border areas, or even center mexico the draw here actually comes from the wealth gap. So if you dont want to make Texas poorer - which I'm sure you dont want - you have to actually help to make mexico richer. America first is the opposite of that.
Now at least under Trump the number of illegal immigrants is 'remaining steady' despite his politics. It kind of stopped declining though.
Look at this graph:
The decline of illegal migrants from mexico can be interpreted as a result of Trumps "tough hand border programs". But the incline of immigrants from other countries can very well be interpreted as a result of "america first" economic policies. So Trump actually kind of increased the issue - so he could talk about it more?
So he could say, that border programs are historically underfunded? When the problem was highest in 2005 (Bush)?
If they are from a war/terrorism torn country, they are seeking amnesty - if they are not they are not (on average). All of them try to get better life and job conditions in 'merica. Noone is "invading". Invading is, when you do that thing with weapons drawn, which they arent.
Also - if you read up on it - the number of illegal immigrants in your country streadily increased under all previous (even more than three) administrations (including deportations). So its structural. The answer has to be structural as well (economic programs with mexico).
Or wall. But wall doesnt work. It would just be blocking your view of continuing tragedy. And it wouldnt even do a very good job at that, because journalists would use ladders to take pictures. Or migrants woudl send them via Wifi. (The wall concept is really that stupid. Those people tracked through desserts for months, do you really think a very long - but not that high border wall would stop them? In terms of signaling, that you dont want them - it would produce a decline. But you could have that cheaper - without loosing your humanity. Look at the graph again.)
Last edited by notimp,
Also - I was wrong, that your illegal immigrant population was always slowly growing - it actually declined from 2007-2012. Apart from that it was right.
Also (probably late) 2017 is kind of early to interpret the impact of Trumps measures. Next version of the graph would be more helpful for that.
Also would you please start clicking on source links and not wait for someone to make you a presentation on your scrolly feed screen on the forum/social media platform you like? Its one click. You can do it.
Also (probably late) 2017 is kind of early to interpret the impact of Trumps measures. Next version of the graph would be more helpful for that.
Also would you please start clicking on source links and not wait for someone to make you a presentation on your scrolly feed screen on the forum/social media platform you like? Its one click. You can do it.
Last edited by notimp,
How do we know the numbers went down around 2010? And even the liberal media reported that Obama fudged the numbers. I would link but I am too new it seems... After typing a mega reply... it all was for nothing because I must have 5 posts to link it seems.
As soon as I saw "cnn.com" I stopped reading as everything CNN says is absolute bullshit. Anyways on the topic...those illegal shits get what they deserve. They think they can just come up in here and take over our jobs so us Americans have less jobs to choose from and etc but nope they can't. The day America starts opening up their border freely is the day pigs fly. Case closed.
PEW research center. Look it up.
Also - its a trend covering three adminstrations.
Also - if people established how to do the "counting" procedure - they kind of dont change that - because 'the president' tells them to.
Also - because those reseach centers arent "tha media".
How you usually 'attack' those numbers is, that you produces different research centers, that provide different numbers.
Also - if you ask google, it tells you this:
Also - talk is cheap, and producing numbers usually isn't. So what ever an administration "says" (Obama so liberal sentiment, while he was actually 'deporter in chief') - usually is less reliable than statistics.
Also democracies kind of don't work with goons in every institution that write what a president tells them to. Not even in tha media.
But we have established, that there is a slight (not that bad) liberal bias in media, that probably won't go away.
But its a smaller issue than - half of america getting their news from FOX TV and Breitbart - because those are not "center" news outlets, those are far right.
Simpsons said it. (Not just them, its just - at already has reached pop culture, at this point. Is the point.)
If nothing is true, and everything is a lie - and only the president knows the numbers, but he doesnt publish them - the chances are, that you arent entirely rational.
As soon as you publish numbers - every side is able to attack them. If they do it with arguments, and not just feels, the institution who publishes them gets a bad reputation. PEW research center hasnt.
If feels don't line up with numbers, thats an issue of PR or public reception - not polling.
That feels don't line up with numbers is basically caused by 'bubbles' on social media. We know that as well. Facebook don't care - because bubbles increase engagement - meaning more ad money for them.
Last edited by notimp,
Why not? This is a illegal immigration thread. And it adds that immigration things handled by the Obama administration weren’t handled so great, so it’s not entirely on Trump and Republicans, it’s an on going problem from before.
My post wasn’t a but Obama but Trump. I was replying to someone else. Adding to what they already said. It wasn’t even look at Obama so don’t look at Trump.But Obama, but Trump, but Obama, but Trump.
Do you even realize that the reasons for why stuff changed under Obama and Bush, are already on this page? Why are you continuing on with stupid namecalling despite it?
So the "invasion" (that is no invasion) began under Clinton, and under Obama deportation increased to a temporary high - which is why he became "deporter in chief" (entirely useless term), because he deported about 140.000 people more a year than the previous president. But then illegal migration numbers were almost double of those today in some of those years as well. From a "base level" of 500.000 a year.
Overall numbers are steeply declining since 2007 (that was before Obama) but from a high base level.
Conditions in camps probably werent great under the Obama administration, but at least you had no (?) publicized cases of children being seperated, held in cages, and the government having forgotten who their parents were, because they didnt think to ask before seperating them.
Thats plain and utter stupidity mixed with cruelty. Thats illegal as well. And that kind of sounds like a thing that stupid people who already are desensetized or racist would do, because they were now thinking they could - because the president was one of them. No proof, but it 'has that smell'. When orders from courts came to reunite them, the fuckers really just responded with "we havent got the information". I mean fuck.
Probably nothing Trump 'did' by anything other than settng a moral example.
Excuses, that the problem is so much worse currently (in terms of the amount of people coming in) are wrong. And were wrong during Obama. The most people came in illegally under Bush actually.
Excuses, that the issue is that border patrol is underfunded are wrong, because the problem existed on the same level it does currently since 2002 (Bush). (Look at the graphs, If you cant interpret them - you have to listen to people who can, you cant "intuitively feel" your way to be on the right side of "truth" here.)
Excuses, that the problem is becoming worse as we speak are wrong because the numnbers are actually leveling out.
Ideas to build a 'wall' are actually stupid, the mere idea of people dying at the wall in great numbers would 'shock' american society even more than 9/11 did. Probably. So the wanted effect of a wall would be that of a 'signal' (PR) - and you can have that easier, than by building a wall. Part of the mistreatment of children, is also exactly that - a signal - until very recently you werent stupid enough though to actually "loose" parents of children.
Excuses, that the parents should have known, that that was coming are wrong, because no civilized country in the world does that. Even courts say - you cant, that what you did was illegal and plain stupidity.
So - if numbers of illegal immigrants were declining (and trafficers currently resort to raising demand, by telling potential buyers, that its now or never, because Trump will build wall), why has it become such an important topic under the current administration? They arent declining fast enough?
Probably not - probably more likely, because raising fear and uncertainty - is about the only thing the current administration - kind of does well.
Also - by doing those "america first" deals with Mexico - you added to the issue. You realize that? People are 'invading' because they can't get decently paying jobs in the border areas, or even center mexico the draw here actually comes from the wealth gap. So if you dont want to make Texas poorer - which I'm sure you dont want - you have to actually help to make mexico richer. America first is the opposite of that.
Now at least under Trump the number of illegal immigrants is 'remaining steady' despite his politics. It kind of stopped declining though.
Look at this graph:
The decline of illegal migrants from mexico can be interpreted as a result of Trumps "tough hand border programs". But the incline of immigrants from other countries can very well interpreted as a result of "america first" economic policies. So Trump actually kind of increased the issue - so he could talk about it more?
So he could say, that border programs are historically underfunded? When the problem was highest in 2005 (Bush)?
If they are from a war/terrorism torn country, they are seeking amnesty - if they are not they are not (on average). All of them try to get better life and job conditions in 'merica. Noone is "invading". Invading is, when you do that thing with weapons drawn, which they arent.
Also - if you read up on it - the number of illegal immigrants in your country streadily increased under all previous (even more than three) administrations (including deportations). So its structural. The answer has to be structural as well (economic programs with mexico).
Or wall. But wall doesnt work. It would just be blocking your view of continuing tragedy. And it wouldnt even do a very good job at that, because journalists would use ladders to take pictures. Or migrants woudl send them via Wifi. (The wall concept is really that stupid. Those people tracked through desserts for months, do you really think a very long - but not that high border wall would stop them? In terms of signaling, that you dont want them - it would produce a decline. But you could have that cheaper - without loosing your humanity. Look at the graph again.)
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
