What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Undocumented Immigrant Thread (3 Viewers)

I changed the title to this thread again because it’s all about the same issue. Does Trump really think he’s going to stem migration by cutting off aid to these Latin American countries? That strikes me as having the opposite effect. It’s cruel, short sided, and just plain dumb IMO. Any Trump supporters want to defend this stuff? 
From the Trumper POV, this is a genius move all around.

First, it theoretically saves the U.S. billions of dollars.

Second, it allows Trump to claim "DEMS WANT OPEN BORDERS!" if any Democrat challenges him.

Third, it destabilizes those countries (which could potentially open the door for an imperialist takeover).

Fourth, if it does result in a wave of immigrants storming the border, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy to justify Trump's emergency declaration.

Trump is manufacturing a real crisis to justify manufacturing a fake crisis. Plus it's kinda racist. It's a win all around

 
See I don’t even know if he’s thinking that far ahead. It seems to me that he’s been looking for an excuse to cut off aid to “####hole” countries because he has a cruel streak and because he doesn’t like helping Latinos. (Same reason he wanted to cut off aid to Puerto Rico.) 

 
See I don’t even know if he’s thinking that far ahead. It seems to me that he’s been looking for an excuse to cut off aid to “####hole” countries because he has a cruel streak and because he doesn’t like helping Latinos. (Same reason he wanted to cut off aid to Puerto Rico.) 
I would agree that he's probably not thinking as far ahead as "destabilize Latin American countries so we can install puppets that will eventually allow our multinational corporations to plunder them", but he is definitely anticipating how this move will help him with the emergency declaration and with the 2020 election.

 
timschochet said:
I changed the title to this thread again because it’s all about the same issue. Does Trump really think he’s going to stem migration by cutting off aid to these Latin American countries? That strikes me as having the opposite effect. It’s cruel, short sided, and just plain dumb IMO. Any Trump supporters want to defend this stuff? 
Why is it cruel?  What about countries that never sent aid?  Are they more cruel?

 
Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Saturday that America has a “crisis” at the southern border, and that the number of apprehensions exceed anything he encountered during his time serving under former President Barack Obama.

“By anyone's definition, by any measure, right now we have a crisis at our southern border,” he said on “Cavuto LIVE.” “According to the commissioner of [Customs and Border Protection], there were 4,000 apprehensions in one day alone this past week, and we're on pace for 100,000 apprehensions on our southern border this month.”

“That is by far a greater number than anything I saw on my watch in my three years as Secretary of Homeland Security,” he said.
No, not a crisis.

Last month, more than 76,000 migrants were detained, marking the highest number of apprehensions in 12 years. That figure includes more than 7,000 unaccompanied children. More than 36,000 migrant families have arrived in the El Paso region in fiscal 2019 with about 2,000 at the same time last year, according to CBP data.
link

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Saturday that America has a “crisis” at the southern border, and that the number of apprehensions exceed anything he encountered during his time serving under former President Barack Obama.

“By anyone's definition, by any measure, right now we have a crisis at our southern border,” he said on “Cavuto LIVE.” “According to the commissioner of [Customs and Border Protection], there were 4,000 apprehensions in one day alone this past week, and we're on pace for 100,000 apprehensions on our southern border this month.”

“That is by far a greater number than anything I saw on my watch in my three years as Secretary of Homeland Security,” he said.
No, not a crisis.

Last month, more than 76,000 migrants were detained, marking the highest number of apprehensions in 12 years. That figure includes more than 7,000 unaccompanied children. More than 36,000 migrant families have arrived in the El Paso region in fiscal 2019 with about 2,000 at the same time last year, according to CBP data.
What percentage of those detained/apprehended were at legal ports of entry?  Can you provide a link for your quotes?

 
“By anyone's definition, by any measure, right now we have a crisis at our southern border,”
A crisis that wall would prevent?  Again, do you have a link to for your quotes?  I'm curious as to the number of apprehensions that are illegal.  Immigrants are allowed to enter the country through legal ports of entry and seek asylum.  The number of immigrants doesn't make this a national emergency.

 
A crisis that wall would prevent?  Again, do you have a link to for your quotes?  I'm curious as to the number of apprehensions that are illegal.  Immigrants are allowed to enter the country through legal ports of entry and seek asylum.  The number of immigrants doesn't make this a national emergency.
It does when the border patrol agents are overwhelmed by the sheer numbers. 

 
A crisis that wall would prevent?  Again, do you have a link to for your quotes?  I'm curious as to the number of apprehensions that are illegal.  Immigrants are allowed to enter the country through legal ports of entry and seek asylum.  The number of immigrants doesn't make this a national emergency.
I put it in my first post. I'm not saying a wall will fix it or that how Trump is going about this is right but we should at least acknowledge that there is a crisis so we can work together to fix it. Calling it a manufactured crisis isn't helping.

 
It's too bad a chant of 'Build the expansion of legal immigrant processing centers, with more humane holding facilities, and fully staff them to ensure reasonable processing times' didn't quite catch on.

 
I put it in my first post. I'm not saying a wall will fix it or that how Trump is going about this is right but we should at least acknowledge that there is a crisis so we can work together to fix it. Calling it a manufactured crisis isn't helping.
I'm all in favor of addressing immigration.  It should be studied and addressed - perhaps with a bipartisan gang of some sort.  Maybe 4 Dems & 4 Republicans. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is it cruel?  What about countries that never sent aid?  Are they more cruel?
I don’t worry about other countries. I worry about us. 

It’s cruel because we pledged the aid, those countries have failing economies (in which we played a significant role in bringing about) and if we don’t help them some folks are going to starve. 

 
No, not a crisis.

link
Pity it does not mention how many were detaied at a port of entry. Because that would support the underlying argument of the need for a wall. Instead, we are left guessing why that information was left out

And just because an Obama appointed guy says "by any standard" it does not remove my critical thinking

 
No, not a crisis.

link
We have a humanitarian crisis.

US-Mexico border official says migrant crisis 'at breaking point'

The US-Mexico border has reached "breaking point", US officials say, amid an "unprecedented" surge in migrant numbers.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said it is "a matter of time" before tragedy strikes at one of their facilities.

In El Paso, Texas, officials have over 13,000 migrants in custody this week, he said.

Most of the migrants entering the US are families or unaccompanied children.

"On Monday and Tuesday, CBP started the day with over 12,000 migrants in our custody," Mr McAleenan said at a news conference on Wednesday.

"As of this morning, that number was 13,400. A high number for us is 4,000. A crisis level is 6,000. 13,000 is unprecedented."

Media captionKevin McAleenan speaks in El Paso, just down the road from a makeshift detention centre

During previous immigration surges, many of those seeking entry were single adults, the commissioner said.

But because these are family units and children, they cannot be easily repatriated and instead, are "almost guaranteed to be released to remain in the US indefinitely".

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) still do not have the capacity to detain families and children, officials said.

Mr McAleenan said his agency expects 40,000 children to enter CBP custody in March after entering the US unaccompanied, "in the hands of violent and callous smugglers".

"We are doing everything we can to simply avoid a tragedy in a CBP facility," he added. "But with these numbers, with the types of illnesses we're seeing...I fear that it's just a matter of time."

CBP officials are on pace to manage over 100,000 migrants this month - the highest in a month since 2008.

A humanitarian emergency in a political storm

The images from El Paso are dramatic. Men, women and children huddle behind chain-link fences, with only the most rudimentary of services.

Donald Trump has called the border situation a "crisis" - and while the families crossing into the US at a growing rate may not be the national security threat he describes, the potential for a humanitarian emergency is real.

The challenge for the US government is that there is no clear way to end the refugee tide without changing US law, which allows migrants to claim asylum from anywhere on US soil.

Mr Trump's much-touted border wall - which already largely exists in El Paso - is ineffective, because it can't be built on the Rio Grande river, the actual border separating the US and Mexico.

Refugees can complete their 1,000-mile journey from Central America by wading into US territory.

This could put Democrats in a bind. For months they've criticised Mr Trump's warnings of border chaos as anti-immigrant hysteria. The debate over immigration has hardened into partisan trench warfare.

The situation, however, is changing.

If Democrats don't acknowledge this - and offer solutions - they risk finding themselves on the wrong side of public opinion and in the midst of a growing political storm.

The agency has now redirected 750 agents from their roles at ports of entry to instead support the "humanitarian mission".

"We have in some sectors an average of 40% of our Border Patrol agents all fully engaged in just the care, transport, and processing of migrants."

CBP is asking for assistance from other federal agencies including the National Guard and Department of Defence to increase the capacity to process migrants.

Mr McAleenan has also asked for immediate legislative action from Congress so the agency can detain families together. as well as for the government to fix issues in the legal process for asylum seekers.

He noted that it often takes two to five years for asylum seekers to see a judge, and only around 10 to 15% of migrants actually have a legitimate claim.

US President Donald Trump last month declared a national emergency at the border, in order to tap into funding for a US-Mexico border wall.

But Democrats argued he has manufactured a crisis at the border to fulfill a campaign promise, bypassing congressional authority in the process.

News of the dire situation at the border comes as "the mother of all caravans" is reportedly forming in Honduras.

Mexican news outlet El Economista reports that this latest group of migrants travelling to the US could have more than 20,000 people.

Mexico's Interior Minister Olga Sanchez Cordero told local media an estimated 900,000 migrants will make their way through Mexico towards the US border by the end of 2019.
 
Mr Trump's much-touted border wall - which already largely exists in El Paso - is ineffective, because it can't be built on the Rio Grande river, the actual border separating the US and Mexico.

Refugees can complete their 1,000-mile journey from Central America by wading into US territory.
Can't be built on the shore, or ~50' from it?  Seems like a dumb reason to call it "ineffective". 

 
50' from it is still the US, as is crossing the centerline of the Rio Grande.
I guess I misread the intent of that particular line.  It means to say it would be ineffective at preventing people from getting onto US soil to be able to claim asylum.  I read it as being ineffective at letting people walk into the country.  It's a humanitarian crisis, at the border.  Maybe we need a better system at determining what is and what isn't a refugee seeking asylum, so we don't have a backlog that's currently years long and growing. 

 
Pity it does not mention how many were detaied at a port of entry. Because that would support the underlying argument of the need for a wall. Instead, we are left guessing why that information was left out

And just because an Obama appointed guy says "by any standard" it does not remove my critical thinking


How come so many more illegals are coming now?  The  number of apprehensions had been trending down pre-Trump.
It’s tough to find those numbers, but in a quick search, I found this article:

NYT article

“At least 70 such groups of 100 or more people have turned themselves in at Border Patrol stations that typically are staffed by only a handful of agents, often hours away from civilization. By comparison, only 13 such groups arrived in the last fiscal year, and two in the year before.”

These numbers seem like a conservative estimate over the beginning of this fiscal year. I found other estimates that were higher, and it is only the people that voluntarily turned themselves over.

I also found these things interesting:

“Arrests along the southern border have increased 97 percent since last year, the Border Patrol said, with a 434 percent increase in the El Paso sector, which covers the state of New Mexico and the two westernmost counties of Texas. Families, mainly from Central America, continue to arrive in ever-larger groups in remote parts of the southwest...Understanding what is happening on the border is difficult because, while the numbers are currently higher than they have been in several years, they are nowhere near the historic levels of migration seen across the southwest border. Arrests for illegally crossing the border reached up to 1.64 million in 2000, under President Clinton. In the 2018 fiscal year, they reached 396,579. For the first five months of the current fiscal year, 268,044 have been apprehended.” (The ellipse was the preceding paragraph I cut and pasted)

Also:

“Now, the majority of border crossers are not single men but families — fathers from Honduras with adolescent boys they are pulling away from gang violence, mothers with toddlers from Guatemala whose farms have been lost to drought. While they may not have a good case to remain in the United States permanently, it is not so easy to speedily deport them if they arrive with children and claim protection under the asylum laws.” and “Finally, detaining families even for the first few days after their arrival in the United States, while they are undergoing initial processing, is also a challenging job.

Often arriving exhausted, dehydrated, and some of them requiring urgent medical care, the families need food, diapers, infant formula and space to play. They can often spend days inside cramped concrete cells that were built to house the previous generation of border crossers — young, single men who would likely be there only a few hours.”

Zero tolerance + Families immigrating + Pre-detain those seeking asylum = A LOT more people detained for a lot longer than was the norm

Hence, trump gets his “national emergency.” Is it a crisis? Yes, it is a humanitarian crisis, and I believe it will get worse if trump is allowed to cut all aid to the 3 Mexicos directly below Mexico.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm all in favor of addressing immigration.  It should be studied and addressed - perhaps with a bipartisan gang of some sort.  Maybe 4 Dems & 4 Republicans. 
That's great in theory, but how do you get around the fact the Republicans are starting to deny science?  Numbers are basically science right? 

 
Hence, trump gets his “national emergency.” Is it a crisis? Yes, it is a humanitarian crisis, and I believe it will get worse if trump is allowed to cut all aid to the 3 Mexicos directly below Mexico.
By cutting aid, he's helping to create the "crisis".  So far it seems the only solutions this administration is capable of is walling us off from the world and ignoring it.  Nationalism.

But as to my responses to @jamny and @JohnnyU, building a wall and cutting humanitarian aid will do nothing to solve the worsening crisis - one Trump is only going to make worse.  Immigrants coming to American soil and applying for asylum are NOT illegals - they are following current US immigration policy.

 
By cutting aid, he's helping to create the "crisis".  So far it seems the only solutions this administration is capable of is walling us off from the world and ignoring it.  Nationalism.

But as to my responses to @jamny and @JohnnyU, building a wall and cutting humanitarian aid will do nothing to solve the worsening crisis - one Trump is only going to make worse.  Immigrants coming to American soil and applying for asylum are NOT illegals - they are following current US immigration policy.
Yep. That’s my point, and I agree all around.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We won’t solve these problems with the answers trump has proffered. They will get worse, which actually seems to be a component of his “solutions.”

 
By cutting aid, he's helping to create the "crisis".  So far it seems the only solutions this administration is capable of is walling us off from the world and ignoring it.  Nationalism.

But as to my responses to @jamny and @JohnnyU, building a wall and cutting humanitarian aid will do nothing to solve the worsening crisis - one Trump is only going to make worse.  Immigrants coming to American soil and applying for asylum are NOT illegals - they are following current US immigration policy.
And, just to compound matters, Trump is diverting funds from Border security that would help here - more agents - and spending the money on a project that will have ZERO impact on the problem - walls in the desert. 

 
Let's assume a wall gets built.  Both sides of the wall are US soil so immigrants legally seeking asylum are still able to congregate and flood ports of entry.  I wonder what Trump's next course of action would be. Where do you go when stealing children and caging families doesn't work?

ETA: the dehumanizing process is already at work.  "####hole" countries, "We don't care enough to know the name of the country they come from", etc.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess I misread the intent of that particular line.  It means to say it would be ineffective at preventing people from getting onto US soil to be able to claim asylum.  I read it as being ineffective at letting people walk into the country.  It's a humanitarian crisis, at the border.  Maybe we need a better system at determining what is and what isn't a refugee seeking asylum, so we don't have a backlog that's currently years long and growing. 
There already is international agreement on the bolded 1951 Refugee convention

 
Let's assume a wall gets built.  Both sides of the wall are US soil so immigrants legally seeking asylum are still able to congregate and flood ports of entry.  I wonder what Trump's next course of action would be. Where do you go when stealing children and caging families doesn't work?

ETA: the dehumanizing process is already at work.  "####hole" countries, "We don't care enough to know the name of the country they come from", etc.
You seem to be coming at the idea of a wall as something that would prevent people from attempting to come here claiming asylum, as did the article you posted. Would that be the primary goal of a wall?

 
Yes, I know.  My point is that it takes years to determine who's eligible and who isn't. 
That is nothing new. It's completely natural. You don't see a lot of refugees from countries where human rights are respected, where proper governance is in the high seat and that has a well functioning, independent judicial system. So getting the correct information can be difficult 

 
You seem to be coming at the idea of a wall as something that would prevent people from attempting to come here claiming asylum, as did the article you posted. Would that be the primary goal of a wall?
I don't believe a wall would prevent nor help the current crisis nor would it prevent future immigrants from legally seeking asylum at our ports of entry.  All an immigrant needs to do is cross the Rio Grande and wait for border patrol to pick them up.  We would still have hoards of people waiting on US soil.

No, I don't believe a wall would prevent that.

 
That is nothing new. It's completely natural. You don't see a lot of refugees from countries where human rights are respected, where proper governance is in the high seat and that has a well functioning, independent judicial system. So getting the correct information can be difficult 
It's very new.  "Under the defensive asylum process, applicants must go through the immigration court system, which faces significant backlogs. As of July 2018, there were over 733,000 pending immigration cases and the average wait time for an immigration hearing was 721 days. The backlog has been worsening over the past decade as the funding for immigration judges has failed to keep pace with an increasing case load."

Also, this.

 
I don't believe a wall would prevent nor help the current crisis nor would it prevent future immigrants from legally seeking asylum at our ports of entry.  All an immigrant needs to do is cross the Rio Grande and wait for border patrol to pick them up.  We would still have hoards of people waiting on US soil.

No, I don't believe a wall would prevent that.
OK, but would a wall prevent someone from crossing the Rio Grande and not waiting for border patrol....just walking right in, and being an illegal immigrant from the start?  Isn't that at least one of the primary goals of a wall?

 
OK, but would a wall prevent someone from crossing the Rio Grande and not waiting for border patrol....just walking right in, and being an illegal immigrant from the start?  Isn't that at least one of the primary goals of a wall?
That's not what the crisis is about.  Yes, a wall would decrease the number of stray border crossings.  However the "crisis" is at our ports of entry. A multi-billion dollar wall will not solve the mounting humanitarian crisis nor would it prevent people from legally entering US soil as both sides of the wall would be "US soil".

 
That's not what the crisis is about.  Yes, a wall would decrease the number of stray border crossings.  However the "crisis" is at our ports of entry. A multi-billion dollar wall will not solve the mounting humanitarian crisis nor would it prevent people from legally entering US soil as both sides of the wall would be "US soil".
Maybe I missed it, but who's claiming it would?

 
And imo, it is impossible to have a discussion with people that approach it with an opinion like that.
You are actually having a discussion with said people, you are just disagreeing. Not everyone is going to see the issue like you do, and people like myself believe trump currently is, and has been, degrading the situation with his policy. What’s worse, is that some evidence points to trump possibly worsening the situation to help himself politically. I could be wrong, of course, but so can you, Jamny. 

Being reasonable does not simply mean accepting everything.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top