Is there or isn’t there a crisis on the border?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/border-patrol-rio-grande-overcrowding

Article I read tonight in the NYT. Why has the border been busier the past month? Because reading this alarms me, a moderate Democrat. I see Trump using this to his benefit.

No need to be alarmed. A bunch of families fleeing violence is not a threat to you. Kim Jung Un continuing to develop a nuclear arsenal unchecked by Donald Trump is a much more serious threat.

What exactly did Barack and Joe do for EIGHT years?

THIS.

Anyone?

What did they do? They reduced illegal immigration.

WOW, massive reduction! LOL

And deported a bunch of people. Lots more than Bush did.

There are three kinds of lies.... lies, damned lies, and statistics.

It is easy to manipulate the data when you change the meaning of terminology related to deportation........

Somehow, the Obama administration is simultaneously responsible for the highest rate of deportation in 20 years and a 26 percent drop in deportation. What is going on here? As it turns out, changes in immigration law, terminology and classification are causing this confusion.

One problem is the continued use of “deportation” in virtually all media reporting. In actuality, that category has been obsolete in immigration law since 1996. Prior to 1996, immigration law distinguished between immigrants who were “excluded,” or stopped and prevented from entering U.S. territory, and those who were “deported,” or expelled from the United States after they had made their way into U.S. territory. After 1996, both exclusion and deportation were rolled into one procedure called “removal.” At that point, the term “deportation” no longer had any meaning within the official immigration statistics. Its continued use in media reports is part of the confusion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.41dd7e6e1f41

That's a change that happened in 1996, well before Obama and as such wouldn't account for any new change in the figures during Obama's term.

Yes, please explain how this change made in 1996 was manipulating data 20 years later?

This will hopefully explain it.... the difference between "returns" and "removals."

The key is how you define the term “deport”—and what you think about a broad change in policy that started during the Bush administration and has continued under Obama.

Under Bush, the majority of immigrants that the U.S. sent home were simply “returned.” Nobody took their fingerprints or put a permanent mark on their immigration records. Instead, U.S. authorities put them on buses and sent them back across the border. Between 2001 and 2008, there were over 8.3 million of these informal “returns,” according to the Department of Homeland Security. There were, by contrast, just 2 million “removals.” Those are the more formal deportations—the ones that go through some form of individual review, with an officer if not a judge, and become part of deportees’ permanent records.

But in the second half of the Bush administration, DHS decided to up the number of “removals” and limit the number of “returns.” The government hoped to deter immigrants from sneaking back into the country by making it clear that the U.S. knew who they were—and could punish them more harshly if they showed up again. Under Obama, DHS has stuck with this policy. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of deportations and informal returns was roughly the same—about 1.6 million each. Add up all the relevant numbers, you’ll see removals are on track to end up higher under Obama than Bush (Lind’s point in Vox) but that removals plus returns will end up higher under Bush than Obama (Davis’ point in The Federalist).

https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants

Again, reporting didn’t change from Bush to Obama.

Obama’s administration did more work to document and remove people here illegally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since some Liberal here said Republicans don’t like E-verify,

Why aren’t Domocrat controlled states
mandating the use of E-verify?

Are the Republicans states? Start at home, son.

My home is a Democrat state, you fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since some Liberal here said Republicans don’t like E-verify,

Why aren’t Domocrat controlled states
mandating the use of E-verify?

Are the Republicans states? Start at home, son.

My home is a Democrat state, you fool.

Talk to your GOP comrades.

[Anonymous]

Apparently, Democrats don’t much like E-verify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Apparently, Democrats don’t much like E-verify.

Not as much as Rs don’t like eVerify.

[Anonymous]

Liberals want business as usual.
Most of America doesn’t.

You’ll see. Yet again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Liberals AND THE GOP want business as usual.
Most of America doesn’t.

You’ll see. Yet again.

FIFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9 out of 10 aren't showing up at immigration hearings, according to new DHS testimony.

"In testimony before Congress this month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said that the agency had recently conducted a pilot program with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to test how many recent illegal aliens would show up to their asylum hearings after being released into the U.S.

The results, an ICE official told Congress, were that about 87 percent of illegal aliens, or almost 9-in-10, recently released by DHS into the U.S. did not show up to their asylum hearings. With illegal aliens not showing up to their scheduled hearings, the ICE official said, the agency is then forced to grapple with attempting to locate and deport each illegal alien, an almost impossible task that strains federal resources."

Similarly, only about 12% legally qualify for asylum.

Actual facts are good to know. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

It's come to light that no vaccinations are required by the migrants at the border.

The CDC is not screening migrants for communicable diseases, even though some are coming from Ebola ravaged countries.

Zika, anyone?

Perhaps this is the real reason why Americans don't want these people coming to their neighborhoods. These diseases can be deadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's come to light that no vaccinations are required by the migrants at the border.

The CDC is not screening migrants for communicable diseases, even though some are coming from Ebola ravaged countries.

Zika, anyone?

Perhaps this is the real reason why Americans don't want these people coming to their neighborhoods. These diseases can be deadly.

[Anonymous]

^^ PP's anti-immigrant rants remind me of negative propaganda against Jewish people in the 1940s...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/border-patrol-rio-grande-overcrowding

Article I read tonight in the NYT. Why has the border been busier the past month? Because reading this alarms me, a moderate Democrat. I see Trump using this to his benefit.

No need to be alarmed. A bunch of families fleeing violence is not a threat to you. Kim Jung Un continuing to develop a nuclear arsenal unchecked by Donald Trump is a much more serious threat.

What exactly did Barack and Joe do for EIGHT years?

THIS.

Anyone?

What did they do? They reduced illegal immigration.

WOW, massive reduction! LOL

And deported a bunch of people. Lots more than Bush did.

There are three kinds of lies.... lies, damned lies, and statistics.

It is easy to manipulate the data when you change the meaning of terminology related to deportation........

Somehow, the Obama administration is simultaneously responsible for the highest rate of deportation in 20 years and a 26 percent drop in deportation. What is going on here? As it turns out, changes in immigration law, terminology and classification are causing this confusion.

One problem is the continued use of “deportation” in virtually all media reporting. In actuality, that category has been obsolete in immigration law since 1996. Prior to 1996, immigration law distinguished between immigrants who were “excluded,” or stopped and prevented from entering U.S. territory, and those who were “deported,” or expelled from the United States after they had made their way into U.S. territory. After 1996, both exclusion and deportation were rolled into one procedure called “removal.” At that point, the term “deportation” no longer had any meaning within the official immigration statistics. Its continued use in media reports is part of the confusion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.41dd7e6e1f41

That's a change that happened in 1996, well before Obama and as such wouldn't account for any new change in the figures during Obama's term.

Yes, please explain how this change made in 1996 was manipulating data 20 years later?

This will hopefully explain it.... the difference between "returns" and "removals."

The key is how you define the term “deport”—and what you think about a broad change in policy that started during the Bush administration and has continued under Obama.

Under Bush, the majority of immigrants that the U.S. sent home were simply “returned.” Nobody took their fingerprints or put a permanent mark on their immigration records. Instead, U.S. authorities put them on buses and sent them back across the border. Between 2001 and 2008, there were over 8.3 million of these informal “returns,” according to the Department of Homeland Security. There were, by contrast, just 2 million “removals.” Those are the more formal deportations—the ones that go through some form of individual review, with an officer if not a judge, and become part of deportees’ permanent records.

But in the second half of the Bush administration, DHS decided to up the number of “removals” and limit the number of “returns.” The government hoped to deter immigrants from sneaking back into the country by making it clear that the U.S. knew who they were—and could punish them more harshly if they showed up again. Under Obama, DHS has stuck with this policy. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of deportations and informal returns was roughly the same—about 1.6 million each. Add up all the relevant numbers, you’ll see removals are on track to end up higher under Obama than Bush (Lind’s point in Vox) but that removals plus returns will end up higher under Bush than Obama (Davis’ point in The Federalist).

https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants

Again, reporting didn’t change from Bush to Obama.

Obama’s administration did more work to document and remove people here illegally.

+1000 "Obama changed the definition" is FALSE.

Also, FALSE are the claims that Obama somehow threw open the borders or let illegals flood in or that he caused this problem. The number of illegals declined under Obama. Obama doubled the border patrol's budget and staffing. He had hundreds of miles of border fence built. Highest number of deportations/removals/whatever you want to call it compared to any President before him.

The problem got WORSE AFTER OBAMA. It got worse because of Trump's rhetoric about closing the border. That caused mass panic and hysteria and an influx of people trying to get in before the border closes.

Trump created the current crisis.

[Anonymous]

President Obama granted amnesty for DACA. Central America got the memo that the US was giving away amnesty if you could get your children here, DACA passed in 2012; migration increased from 2012 until it hit the highest in 2014. This is not a coincidence. Central America did not have a sudden uptick in crime. They've always had issues but since the US seemed to be offering amnesty, the came here. That DACA policy was absolutely the trigger.

[Anonymous]

If illegal immigrants declined under Obama (questionable conclusion at best), it's because the economy was so lackluster they were less motivated to invade us. Now that the economy is much much better under Trump, the urgency to illegally invade our country is much greater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:President Obama granted amnesty for DACA. Central America got the memo that the US was giving away amnesty if you could get your children here, DACA passed in 2012; migration increased from 2012 until it hit the highest in 2014. This is not a coincidence. Central America did not have a sudden uptick in crime. They've always had issues but since the US seemed to be offering amnesty, the came here. That DACA policy was absolutely the trigger.

Citation? Because Pew reported it going down.