Best estimates are that we apprehend a solid majority of attempted crossings now (even as the number of apprehensions has drastically fallen from its peak of over 1.6 million, the success rate of attempted crossers has fallen).
You should know better than to cite "best estimates" of a quantity than cannot be reliably estimated. Furthermore, the idea that every failed crossing corresponds to less than 1.5 successful crossings indicates a lack of due respect for the brainpower of the immigrants attempting the trek across our mostly-unsecured border. We only catch the relatively incompetent ones.
The claim that the "success rate of attempted crossers has fallen" deserves special scrutiny. It's utterly unprovable, I'm confident you can't cite a quality source to show it, and yet you state it as fact. You are better than this.
t's precisely the stunning success that the U.S. has had over the past decade at addressing the former problem that has dishonest ethnonationalists using strange anecdotes of random exceptions tomake their case rather than data.
This is at least the fourth time you've committed the fallacy of equating a quantity with its rate of change. It almost seems to be a talking point that you've memorized. I cited the apprehension data (~400,000 per year), and yet you continue to focus on the fact that this figure is lower than it used to be. It's a huge number that should be addressed.
It's precisely the stunning success that the U.S. has had over the past decade at addressing the former problem
What's your evidence for this "stunning success"? Anything beyond apprehensions? I don't make the logical leap that you do in assuming a tight correlation between apprehensions and illegal crossings. Even if I did, I wouldn't assume that a reduction in illegal crossings is attributable primarily to improved enforcement.
They don't vary that much
That's false. For example, the inferior "residual method" estimates (which assume that 90% of illegal immigrants fill out their census forms) that you are most likely referencing give a number around 10 million illegal aliens. Justich and Ng at Bear Stearns
estimated 20 million. Here are some useful quotations from their study:
- [The Census Bureau] has created a circular equation that relies on a singular source of inaccurate statistics that gives the impression of independent, multiple verifications.
- [W]e need not accept the accuracy of the official census immigration statistics, which are widely recognized as incomplete.
- The increases in services, including public school enrollment, language proficiency programs, and building permits all point to a rate of change far greater than the census numbers would imply for the demand for these local services.
assuming that uncertainty means that estimates are too low rather than too high is common among bullshitters
It's much more common for bullshitters to use a phony assumption like "90% of illegal aliens fill out their census forms."
- Based on several criteria (remittances, housing permits in gateway communities, school enrollment, cross border flows), we believe that immigration is growing significantly faster than
the consensus estimates.
I would call that incredible success at addressing the issue and look to continue it.
Right,
look to continue it. We've got apprehensions down to around 400,000 per year. Let's
continue that trend by building a wall. The National Border Patrol Council is calling for it, CBP border chiefs are calling for it, and common sense calls for it.
as problems vary in intensity, the tradeoffs change given that we have limited resources to deal with all problems in the world, and thus our priorities change.
How much do you think the wall would cost? $20 billion? Now consider the cost savings in manpower that it would entail. At the state/local level, we would save millions in government benefits (schooling, health care, welfare). If implemented properly, the wall should save money.
LOL at bellicosity toward Russia. You know that that is just trolling
Obama refused to arm Ukraine with any lethal weaponry. Trump sold $47 million in shoulder-mounted anti-tank missiles to Ukraine within a year of taking office. Trump bombed Syria (and thereby crossed the "red line" that Obama decreed and failed to cross ), withdrew from the Iran deal, killed about 200 Russian contractors, imposed harsher diplomatic sanctions on Russia than Obama, approved a further $200 million in non-lethal military aid to Ukraine, sanctioned Kremlin-linked businessmen and top Russian government officials. If that's not being hard on Russia, what is? Don't mention public condemnation. That's the shallowest/most meaningless form of bellicosity.
There you go. You don't find Miller to be vile, and you admit to liking Kobach. Case closed.
The case you're supposed to be making is that I am a white nationalist. So far you've utterly failed to even make that case that Kobach and Miller are white nationalists. To go even a step further, as you did, to say that
I'm a white nationalist because I like those two men is a huge stretch and is far beneath you.
I have lived in a place that you could call plurality Asian for a significant length of time.
Me too. It's not the same. Go live in ChongQing or Jeju Island or GaoXiong or Fukuoka for five years and speak no English. You will start to see the world very differently.