The weak dollar helps too.
I didn’t say cartel violence drives up illegal immigration. I’m saying illegal immigration should be controlled. That’s why there is a border in El Paso.
Walls work. They have long been a deterrent for illegal immigration. It’s one way to put a dent in it. It’s not all about stopping drug flow.
Really? I can’t ever remember a republican saying that immigrants are bad. I do know they talk a lot about illegal immigration being bad. Seeing as it leads to sexual assault, human trafficking, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, etc…it’s kind of tough to argue with them on it fairly and on the merits. Of course, that’s why very few do.
2 Likes
From 2008 - 2012 the economy was certainly a factor, but I don’t think a weak dollar per say is the biggest driver. The peso, along with other currencies, is always weak to the dollar been that way for two decades.
If most illegal immigrants are coming through legal ports of entry and most drugs are coming through legal ports of entry, then by focusing all your attention on a wall means you have a problem of priorities. Let’s say, for arguments sake, that walls are somewhat effective. Even if that is the case, is that where we should dedicate all of our resources when we can be more effective with other means? Of all the focus on this wall, you really think that was time well spent? Are walls effective enough to warrant being a cornerstone of the 2016 campaign? If illegal immigration was trending down, was this the most important issue to be focused on?
Seems it’s clear there were other motivations besides effectiveness and assessing an actual problem.
We have spent more on other resources as your article points out as well. The wall is one of them.
Slightly, but it’s not like we went from a few hundred thousands to a few thousands. The number in stil over 10 million a year with over half from Mexico. It didn’t become some insignificant issue like Youre portraying by saying it was trending down.
Looks like the Bernie delegates are going to push Biden into accepting Medicare for all. I think Biden was worried about scaring away moderate voters; but covid-19 had exposed problems in US healthcare and Medicare for all might be more popular now. It might be safe to propose
1 Like
You are forgetting an important key data point. You cannot just measure the number coming in, but the number going out, i.e. net immigration flow. That’s a significant trend downward since 2008. The nature of illegal immigration is changing. Priorities should be focused on visa overstays and not an antiquated solution to address a misidentified problem.
From 2015:
From 2012:
If your argument is the current net migration numbers maybe even or slightly negative so it’s not a big deal around half of the 10+ million illegal immigrants coming is not a big deal, it’s not a very convincing one. At least not to me.
As you’ve said yourself. The nature of illegal immigrants changes. Hoping this trend keeps up isn’t a very good policy.
My argument is that a wall is an inefficient and ineffective means to solve the problem. I’ve repeated that point over and over so not sure how you’re getting that I’m suggesting we just ignore illegal immigration.
If the majority of illegal immigrants are overstays and coming through legal ports of entry, why would you argue a wall is the best solution? Increased enforcement on visas, and also focusing on immigrants from places other than Mexico (ahem China) would be a more efficient way to address the problem.
But that is also happening. The democrats haven’t been happy with this either so. Any time Trump tries to tackle the immigration issue, they object and say it’s racist or something. Sanctuary cities also don’t help.
Is it?
Blanket solutions for complex problems do not work. And back to the original point, the centerpiece of his campaign was a wall not overstays. Nuance is always less sexy and less effective red meat for the base.
Was that the best place to focus all of our attention and best way to solve this problem?
Conservatives are so easily appeased with lip service, yet hold no accountability for leaders on actual results (build the wall, N Korea, Iran, China etc. etc.) “Build that wall” is enough because it appeals to fear mongering and race baiting. Whether or not it’s an effective solution, doesn’t seem to matter.
Lol. Liberals are the exact same. Every election time they tell us poor minorities how they’ll help us and end racism. Their cities are the most violent and racist cities full of poverty. Give me a break. I’m done with that BS.
Almost all cities are run by liberals so that argument is a red herring. As more people congregate, and education levels increase they become more liberal. So what? I could just as easily say that Mississippi is proof that conservative policies don’t work.
Instead of admitting that the focus of a campaign on a wall is an ineffective and ridiculous idea, you fall back on liberals running cities and never doing anything for minorities. What does that have to do with anything? That indicates to me that you are more invested in tribalism and ideology that actual policies and actual results. I don’t think any solution that a “liberal” brought to the table would ever convince you. You are too invested in identity politics.
Fine. Back to the topic. How have democrats been tackling the issues you think needs to addressed. Have they been willing to stop illegal immigration?
Speak for yourself. Don’t insult me. You’re the one who threw in the generalizing statement in with none issues.
Don’t get on me for being up other issues when you did it first! It’s right there for you to see.
Start first with what is the most effective means of stopping illegal immigration. You appear to be starting with the assumption that a wall or other deterrents are the most effective way. The alternative approach from Democrats is to reform the system by including legal pathways that remove the incentive to do things illegaly. A wall does not address systemic issues while Democrats are focused on structural reforms. That may not be as sexy, but the results will be more effective. And as Obama has shown, Democrats are very effective on immigration. Let’s not fall into the trap of chest-thumping feel good lip service geared towards the lowest common denominator, and focus on what actually works. It’s very easy to fall into the pattern of “Democrats want to create legal pathways, so they want open borders” when in reality an incentive is more effective than the deterrent.
You went straight into Hannity/Tucker Carlson parroting of liberal cities. Completely irrelevant. Next you will be arguing gun violence in Chicago when it’s not even the most violent city. The motive seems to be to oversimplify and drive narrative for the purpose of reinforcing identity politics than actually discussing real world solutions.
You are the one who brought up other issues…as i’ve pointed out for you to see. Guess you’ll just ignore it. keep at the hypocrisy. Give me a break on your BS of Tucker Carlson parroting. I’ve literally said I don’t like the guy over and over again on this forum. It’s telling that’s how your brain lights up even though you are the first to bring up a whole bunch of issues not related to the topic.
I;ll post it again so you can see it clearly again. Here it is 
No…I don’t. Just to be clear. So take that argument off the table. I said it’s 1 way. I’m happy with others as I’ve already said.
They’ve barely mentioned it, it’s all “lip service” as you’ve said so far with them. They’ve done nothing since 2008.
Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal , or any variation of it, at all.
Honestly, I tried to have a nice civil debate with you. But you can’t do that when someone starts saying things like
This should have gave me the hint you’re not interested in anything I have to say and have made up your mind. I can’t argue against you if that’s your starting position with me.
Not to mention the tucker Carlson parroting.
I’m done with this. Idk what’s up with you but I’m not going to engage like this.
My brain lights up when regurgitate the same talking point from right wing media regardless of who it comes from. Liberals running cities is an asinine and gross over simplification for the sole purpose of pushing a BS narrative based on identify politics. As much as conservatives complain about identity politics, I don’t see the left pushing as the centerpiece of their campaign like the right does.
There are many things you could call effective. Minute men volunteering at the border might also stop one or two people. But is it effective enough to warrant being the center piece of campaign, and effective enough to divert billions in military spending? It’s a joke that you have trouble admitting.
That’s called an example of a trend. That is different than ignoring the entire point of the conversation which is that walls are ineffective and waste orlf resources.
No you know that’s not true when Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any president and also initiated DACA reform. If you want or prefer is deterrents, threats, travel bans over structural reform then just say it. Don’t BS everyone by trying to change history and say Democrats have done nothing. That is just not true.