Dennis, Dennis, Dennis! You must be exhausted. Like need a week long spa vacation exhausted. What with dragging the goal post all over the field, into the parking lot, out on to the highway.
Now, let's get straight, first you claim, and I quote, "floods of illegals crossing the southern border to go unchallenged" and "hoards of illegal immigrants" are crossing the southern border. Then, when I point out that that is in fact, simply not true (see below), you then retort with the this, "I quoted and stated the reason why immigration is down." So, first, hordes are crossing the border, which is not true, and then it's well, no they aren't because of the economy.
An estimated 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2014, according to a new preliminary Pew Research Center estimate based on government data. This population has remained essentially stable for five years after nearly two decades of changes.
Since 2007 the number of illegals in the US has actually dropped. Now, how do you explain "hoards of illegal immigrants" entering the country, but the number of illegals in the country is going down? Are you claiming that they are willingly leaving? While there is no doubt some have returned home, there is no way that "hoards of illegal immigrants" are returning home, which is what would be required to make your math work.
Now, let's talk about this statement, "floods of illegals crossing the southern border to go unchallenged."
First, the number of border agents is at a record high:
The number of border patrol agents increased dramatically between fiscal years 1993 and Sept. 30, 2012. (So did spending.) Nationwide, the peak year was in 2011 with 21,444 agents -- the number dropped slightly to 21,394 in fiscal year 2012.
Now, to lay waste to your ridiculous claim.
Fewer immigrants are entering the U.S. illegally, and thats changed the border security debate: As the Department of Homeland Security continues to pour money into border security, evidence is emerging that illegal immigration flows have fallen to their lowest level in at least two decades...Homeland security officials in the Obama and George W. Bush administrations who have more than doubled the Border Patrols size and spent billions on drones, sensors and other technology at the border say enhanced security is driving the new trends...Whats increasingly clear is that the shifting fortunes of the U.S. economy account for less of the ebb and flow of illegal immigration. Even as the economy bounces back from recession, illegal immigration flows, especially from Mexico, have kept declining, *according to researchers and government data...Some researchers say factors other than security are playing a role and might even account for much of the reduced flow of illegal immigrants...In 2000, considered the peak of the flood of illegal Mexican migration, more than 1.6 million people were apprehended, according to DHS data. Those numbers have plunged to around 400,000 per year since 2012 and are down 28 percent in the first part of fiscal 2015 compared with last year. Even last years widely publicized spike in unaccompanied minors crossing the border from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras has receded dramatically, the data show.
While the declining number of apprehensions is not conclusive proof that illegal immigration is down, other less publicized research strongly suggests this is the case.
You claim of an unchallenged, open southern border is just wrong. Laughably wrong.
Which has little to do with the health of the economy and nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Just more goal post moving. But, what the hell. First, the $10.5 trillion is disingenuous. It ignores most of the 2009 $1.4 trillion deficit that Bush handed Obama.
This is from the CATO Institute, a very, very right-wing think tank.The (data) is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.
In fact, Obama inherited $12 trillion of debt, and more importantly a $1.4 trillion deficit. That deficit has now been cut by more than 50 percent. Bush inherited a balanced budget and yet managed to more than double the debt. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit and will not double the debt while in office. Facts, it's how they work.
Now, let's talk about Muslim terrorist and your pants-wetting. You said, "I worry about my family eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, working in a skyscraper, all of which are soft targets for muslim terrorists." I post several facts regarding Muslims terrorist and Americans killed. Basically pointing out that in the last decade (which you clearly missed) that less than 25 Americans had been killed by Muslim terrorist in the US. And during that same time 300,000 Americans had been killed by Americans in the U.S. with guns, including over 100,000 murders. That it's just silly to be worrying about being killed by a Muslim terrorist in the U.S.. As you simply could not refute that fact, you then, once again, moved the goal post and talked about Americans killed prior to the last decade or outside of the U.S..
The above (and more from your post) was copied (un-cited) from an article in American Thinker, a very biased right-wing site. It in no way refutes the fact that the southern border is not an "open, unchallenged" border.
If by "liberal arguments" you mean facts, and by "blown out of the water" you mean not even addressed, okay then.
Now, let's get straight, first you claim, and I quote, "floods of illegals crossing the southern border to go unchallenged" and "hoards of illegal immigrants" are crossing the southern border. Then, when I point out that that is in fact, simply not true (see below), you then retort with the this, "I quoted and stated the reason why immigration is down." So, first, hordes are crossing the border, which is not true, and then it's well, no they aren't because of the economy.
An estimated 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2014, according to a new preliminary Pew Research Center estimate based on government data. This population has remained essentially stable for five years after nearly two decades of changes.
Since 2007 the number of illegals in the US has actually dropped. Now, how do you explain "hoards of illegal immigrants" entering the country, but the number of illegals in the country is going down? Are you claiming that they are willingly leaving? While there is no doubt some have returned home, there is no way that "hoards of illegal immigrants" are returning home, which is what would be required to make your math work.
Now, let's talk about this statement, "floods of illegals crossing the southern border to go unchallenged."
First, the number of border agents is at a record high:
The number of border patrol agents increased dramatically between fiscal years 1993 and Sept. 30, 2012. (So did spending.) Nationwide, the peak year was in 2011 with 21,444 agents -- the number dropped slightly to 21,394 in fiscal year 2012.
Now, to lay waste to your ridiculous claim.
Fewer immigrants are entering the U.S. illegally, and thats changed the border security debate: As the Department of Homeland Security continues to pour money into border security, evidence is emerging that illegal immigration flows have fallen to their lowest level in at least two decades...Homeland security officials in the Obama and George W. Bush administrations who have more than doubled the Border Patrols size and spent billions on drones, sensors and other technology at the border say enhanced security is driving the new trends...Whats increasingly clear is that the shifting fortunes of the U.S. economy account for less of the ebb and flow of illegal immigration. Even as the economy bounces back from recession, illegal immigration flows, especially from Mexico, have kept declining, *according to researchers and government data...Some researchers say factors other than security are playing a role and might even account for much of the reduced flow of illegal immigrants...In 2000, considered the peak of the flood of illegal Mexican migration, more than 1.6 million people were apprehended, according to DHS data. Those numbers have plunged to around 400,000 per year since 2012 and are down 28 percent in the first part of fiscal 2015 compared with last year. Even last years widely publicized spike in unaccompanied minors crossing the border from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras has receded dramatically, the data show.
While the declining number of apprehensions is not conclusive proof that illegal immigration is down, other less publicized research strongly suggests this is the case.
You claim of an unchallenged, open southern border is just wrong. Laughably wrong.
Which has little to do with the health of the economy and nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Just more goal post moving. But, what the hell. First, the $10.5 trillion is disingenuous. It ignores most of the 2009 $1.4 trillion deficit that Bush handed Obama.
This is from the CATO Institute, a very, very right-wing think tank.The (data) is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.
In fact, Obama inherited $12 trillion of debt, and more importantly a $1.4 trillion deficit. That deficit has now been cut by more than 50 percent. Bush inherited a balanced budget and yet managed to more than double the debt. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit and will not double the debt while in office. Facts, it's how they work.
Now, let's talk about Muslim terrorist and your pants-wetting. You said, "I worry about my family eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, working in a skyscraper, all of which are soft targets for muslim terrorists." I post several facts regarding Muslims terrorist and Americans killed. Basically pointing out that in the last decade (which you clearly missed) that less than 25 Americans had been killed by Muslim terrorist in the US. And during that same time 300,000 Americans had been killed by Americans in the U.S. with guns, including over 100,000 murders. That it's just silly to be worrying about being killed by a Muslim terrorist in the U.S.. As you simply could not refute that fact, you then, once again, moved the goal post and talked about Americans killed prior to the last decade or outside of the U.S..
The above (and more from your post) was copied (un-cited) from an article in American Thinker, a very biased right-wing site. It in no way refutes the fact that the southern border is not an "open, unchallenged" border.
If by "liberal arguments" you mean facts, and by "blown out of the water" you mean not even addressed, okay then.
Just think about how much potential productivity is wasted between you two. Neither one is going to change their mind or concede defeat yet here they are, day after day, spending countless hours searching for links and pasting them into a forum post just do they can have the brief satisfaction of pressing the post button.
You are, of course, quite correct. But, on the other hand, my job requires next to no productivity. As long as my systems are functioning smoothly, I have hours of free time. And my systems are always functioning smoothly!
So who won the debate? LOL....
Hint: Not you.
OK, so the illegal population has leveled off. Are you OK with the fact that they are still here?Dennis, Dennis, Dennis! You must be exhausted. Like need a week long spa vacation exhausted. What with dragging the goal post all over the field, into the parking lot, out on to the highway.
Now, let's get straight, first you claim, and I quote, "floods of illegals crossing the southern border to go unchallenged" and "hoards of illegal immigrants" are crossing the southern border. Then, when I point out that that is in fact, simply not true (see below), you then retort with the this, "I quoted and stated the reason why immigration is down." So, first, hordes are crossing the border, which is not true, and then it's well, no they aren't because of the economy.
An estimated 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2014, according to a new preliminary Pew Research Center estimate based on government data. This population has remained essentially stable for five years after nearly two decades of changes.
Since 2007 the number of illegals in the US has actually dropped. Now, how do you explain "hoards of illegal immigrants" entering the country, but the number of illegals in the country is going down? Are you claiming that they are willingly leaving? While there is no doubt some have returned home, there is no way that "hoards of illegal immigrants" are returning home, which is what would be required to make your math work.
Now, let's talk about this statement, "floods of illegals crossing the southern border to go unchallenged."
First, the number of border agents is at a record high:
The number of border patrol agents increased dramatically between fiscal years 1993 and Sept. 30, 2012. (So did spending.) Nationwide, the peak year was in 2011 with 21,444 agents -- the number dropped slightly to 21,394 in fiscal year 2012.
Now, to lay waste to your ridiculous claim.
Fewer immigrants are entering the U.S. illegally, and that’s changed the border security debate: As the Department of Homeland Security continues to pour money into border security, evidence is emerging that illegal immigration flows have fallen to their lowest level in at least two decades...Homeland security officials in the Obama and George W. Bush administrations - who have more than doubled the Border Patrol’s size and spent billions on drones, sensors and other technology at the border - say enhanced security is driving the new trends...What’s increasingly clear is that the shifting fortunes of the U.S. economy account for less of the ebb and flow of illegal immigration. Even as the economy bounces back from recession, illegal immigration flows, especially from Mexico, have kept declining, *according to researchers and government data...Some researchers say factors other than security are playing a role and might even account for much of the reduced flow of illegal immigrants...In 2000, considered the peak of the flood of illegal Mexican migration, more than 1.6 million people were apprehended, according to DHS data. Those numbers have plunged to around 400,000 per year since 2012 and are down 28 percent in the first part of fiscal 2015 compared with last year. Even last year’s widely publicized spike in unaccompanied minors crossing the border from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras has receded dramatically, the data show.
While the declining number of apprehensions is not conclusive proof that illegal immigration is down, other less publicized research strongly suggests this is the case.
You claim of an unchallenged, open southern border is just wrong. Laughably wrong.
Which has little to do with the health of the economy and nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Just more goal post moving. But, what the hell. First, the $10.5 trillion is disingenuous. It ignores most of the 2009 $1.4 trillion deficit that Bush handed Obama.
This is from the CATO Institute, a very, very right-wing think tank.The (data) is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.
In fact, Obama inherited $12 trillion of debt, and more importantly a $1.4 trillion deficit. That deficit has now been cut by more than 50 percent. Bush inherited a balanced budget and yet managed to more than double the debt. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit and will not double the debt while in office. Facts, it's how they work.
Now, let's talk about Muslim terrorist and your pants-wetting. You said, "I worry about my family eating at a restaurant, going to a concert, working in a skyscraper, all of which are soft targets for muslim terrorists." I post several facts regarding Muslims terrorist and Americans killed. Basically pointing out that in the last decade (which you clearly missed) that less than 25 Americans had been killed by Muslim terrorist in the US. And during that same time 300,000 Americans had been killed by Americans in the U.S. with guns, including over 100,000 murders. That it's just silly to be worrying about being killed by a Muslim terrorist in the U.S.. As you simply could not refute that fact, you then, once again, moved the goal post and talked about Americans killed prior to the last decade or outside of the U.S..
The above (and more from your post) was copied (un-cited) from an article in American Thinker, a very biased right-wing site. It in no way refutes the fact that the southern border is not an "open, unchallenged" border.
If by "liberal arguments" you mean facts, and by "blown out of the water" you mean not even addressed, okay then.
Woody
No, not at all. But that is entirely beside the point. The fact is, there are not hordes of illegals crossing unchallenged into the U.S. across the southern border.
On a related note...lots of folks are celebrating state governors who are making announcements about not "allowing", or wanting to restrict, refugees in their states.
Think about that. What authority does a state governor have to restrict the freedom of movement of someone legally/lawfully present in these United States? Think carefully, regardless of whether or not you agree with the presence of a group of individuals in the U.S.. Do you really want your governor to have that authority?
Demanding thorough vetting is fine. Monitoring after admission is a must too. But face it, governors don't really have a say in the matter under our system.
Think about that. What authority does a state governor have to restrict the freedom of movement of someone legally/lawfully present in these United States? Think carefully, regardless of whether or not you agree with the presence of a group of individuals in the U.S.. Do you really want your governor to have that authority?
Demanding thorough vetting is fine. Monitoring after admission is a must too. But face it, governors don't really have a say in the matter under our system.
Last edited:
Ace, I presented current facts and numbers. You presented nothing but mumbo jumbo, skirting the very numbers with spin. Sorry man, you loose.
