Should we have border security?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We'd certainly have more success in dealing with illegal immigration if we tackled the internal issues that cause people to want to come here illegally.  We certainly could increase and should increase the amount of legal immigration we have.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

2-Why would people smuggle drugs from Canada anyway? Sounds like it'd more likely to be the other way around.

Enforcement of marijuana laws are somewhat looser than in this country.  Still, Canadian weed is believed to make up only around 2 to 5% of the US supply.  However, if ever did get a non-porous border with Mexico, I'd expect that to rapidly change.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Still, Canadian weed is believed to make up only around 2 to 5% of the US supply.  However, if ever did get a non-porous border with Mexico, I'd expect that to rapidly change.

We need more Canadian weed as the people producing it are far less likely to be murderers.

Why not simply allow domestic production?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's the full sentence you selectively quoted:

"The government is scuttling the long-used concept of operational control, and replacing it by counting apprehensions and seizures of drugs, weapons and currency."

Now what's so bad about dropping some nebulous concept that gives people no way to judge how well the Border Patrol is doing and replacing it by actual statistics?  One can argue if those statistics are the ones that should be measured, but hopefully you'll make your arguments without using misleading partial quotes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's the full sentence you selectively quoted:

"The government is scuttling the long-used concept of operational control, and replacing it by counting apprehensions and seizures of drugs, weapons and currency."

Ernest,

Please stop the dishonesty!

Actually, that is what I have to say to you.

I understand you are in favor of illegals crossing the border, but just say so instead of misleading.

No I'm not in favor of illegals crossing the border, but I do realize that we do have pesky things like budgets and the Constitution to consider as well.  No government ever has the resources to do everything it would like to do.  That our Federal government has forgotten that for the past few decades is precisely why we are in the fiscal mess we are in now.

Oh, and the definition of "operational security" is given in the previous reports on border security, and is not as "nebulous" as you would suggest.

The quote mentioned "operational control" not "operational security" and given the gobbledygook bureaucrats put out, I doubt that even if they have defined them, the bureaucrats mean the same thing.  But since you assert that there is a actual definition being referred to, please go ahead and provide a link to it, or them if you wish to define both.  The fact that you couldn't even keep the terms straight in the same post only goes to show how much both are likely bureaucratic doublespeak signifying nothing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The 2006 Secure Fence Act defined “operational control” as “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”

So it's an imaginary goal that can't ever be attained, even if we closed the border to everything and placed minefields on all our borders and coasts.  No metrics to even judge how close we come to that utopian standard.  So "operational control" is defined exactly as I thought it would be, as meaningless gobbledygook to make people think that those in charge in 2006 were actually interested in doing something about immigration.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's the full sentence you selectively quoted:

"The government is scuttling the long-used concept of operational control, and replacing it by counting apprehensions and seizures of drugs, weapons and currency."

Now what's so bad about dropping some nebulous concept that gives people no way to judge how well the Border Patrol is doing and replacing it by actual statistics?  One can argue if those statistics are the ones that should be measured, but hopefully you'll make your arguments without using misleading partial quotes.

CLUSIVE: Federal Agents Told to Reduce Border Arrests, Arizona Sheriff Says
By Jana Winter

Published April 01, 2011

An Arizona sheriff says U.S. Border Patrol officials have repeatedly told him they have been ordered to reduce -- at times even stop -- arrests of illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the U.S. border.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/01/exclusive-federal-agents-told-reduce-border-arrests-arizona-sheriff-says/

I presume you linked the story along with a quote of my earlier post because later on in the story, it had someone who did question the choice of statistics used. Reasonable questions, but ones that don't suggest what better statistics should be used instead.

However, since your quote from the story isn't about that, let me instead address that by including what you left out from that same article, since it once again shows your need to use selective quotes to reinforce your myopic point of view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it appears that at the most we have an idiot mid-level bureaucrat in the Border Patrol trying to make things look good in the sector he or she is responsible for, not some nefarious scheme of the Obama administration to fudge overall results.  And that's if Dever is telling the whole truth.

Carl it is people like you who make Fox News look like they actually do live up to their slogan of "Fair & Balanced".  They certainly do a better job of it than you ever do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As will become evident in the coming month, Jeffery Bell LIED!

You believe the most pathetic lies, as long as they come from Obama administration officials.

If you're going to rant, could you at least rant coherently?  I don't know who this Jeffery Bell is, nor did a quick google find anyone relevant.  As for Jeffrey Self (the article you linked to misspelled his name, which I discovered while googling to find out who he is in more detail) who I presume is who you meant to refer to, he's a 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol and while definitely a bureaucrat who had spent six years in Washington before being tapped late last year to head up the newly-formed Joint Field Command, he's not an Obama political appointee, but still in the civil service.

(link - Arizona Daily Star article about him taking command of the JFC which gives some good background info on Jeffrey Self.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I realize that you are unable to disagree with Obama.

I also realize that you will disagree with me on everything simply to be what you are.

This could create quite the paradox for TF if you ever agree with Obama on anything.

Yeah.

It would probably drive him to TOTAL dysfunction.

I'm not worried, CARL.  It probably would take something like Obama declaring the suspension of habeas corpus within 25 miles of the Mexican border to get you to agree with something Obama does.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It would be nice if the Obama administration would enforce the laws on the books rather than granting administrative amnesties.

That will require an increase in funding so as to actually have places to put the people you want locked up until they are deported.  So, CARL, how much more do you want spent, and how do you propose it get paid for?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Could you two please get a room?     Ernest, surrender, CARL is not going to see it your way.....ever, ever, ever, ever. 

Sorry.  I have no French ancestors.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It would be nice if the Obama administration would enforce the laws on the books rather than granting administrative amnesties.

That will require an increase in funding so as to actually have places to put the people you want locked up until they are deported.  So, CARL, how much more do you want spent, and how do you propose it get paid for?

There are many existing expenditures that could be reduced to pay for such measures.

Lets start by defunding NPR, reduce the funding of EPA, and eliminate Obamacare.

So to save us from toxic Mexicans, you would have us not worry so much about toxic chemicals.  However, that still doesn't put a dollar figure on what you think would be enough to give what you think would be adequate border security.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sheriff Babeu doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to sticking to just the facts about what is going on at the border. (link - Arizona Daily Star)

More confirmation from the Border Patrol agents union.

http://www.local2544.org/

If you read carefully, its not just one management person telling the agents not to apprehend.

I read carefully, and all I saw was an echoing of the claims made by the Arizona sheriffs, not provide their own claims.  While they say they are sure that the claims are true and that there are multiple low-level executives who could back up the claims.  They are careful to not claim what any such people have said such things to the union.  I'll take those claims with a large grain of salt until someone actually comes forward to corroborate them.  So far all we have is people on both sides engaged in self-interested statements.

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece by James W. Ziglar And Edward Alden on its opinion page about the subject today: "The Real Price of Sealing the Border". (link - WSJ has a pay wall)

Back in 2002, Ziglar (then head of INS) had a study done on how much it would take to just carry out the mandates for border security on the books then.  The INS budget in 2002 was $6 billion, and the study concluded that to meet the mandates in 2010 would require a budget of $47 billion.  Since then, the budget for border enforcement has increased to around $17 billion while Congress has mandated additional things they expect done.  About the only one of the seven goals laid out then that is close to being accomplished is increasing the size of the Border Patrol, which has about doubled in the past five years to around 21,000.

I'll leave the pair's spin on the numbers out.  It is just spin, and I know CARL would disagree with it anyway.  What is useful about it is that does give a target budget number.

If you check the opening post on this thread you will have some idea of the position of the voters.

Opening post:

Recently I posted a government analysis in which it was acknowledged that the southern land border was not secured.  One of the posters on that thread suggested something to the effect that 'everyone knows that.'

So, the next question is, should we have border security.  In this context, two specific proposals, with survey results on public attitude.

So, do you agree with the public? 

Would you favor or oppose each of the following proposals: (RANDOM ORDER)

                                   Favor Oppose No opinion

Building a 700 mile long fence on the border with Mexico

May 21-23, 2010         54%     45%        1%
May 4-6, 2007             45%     53%        2%

Putting more Border Patrol and federal law
enforcement agents on the U.S. border with Mexico

May 21-23, 2010         88%     12%        1%
October 20-22, 2006   74%     25%        1%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/26/cnn-poll-support-for-border-crackdown-grows/

So the voters support the doubling of the size of the Border Patrol that has been done, altho I have to wonder how many of those who were polled were even aware that had happened.

I also have to wonder how many of those supporting building a 700-mile fence on the Mexico border were aware of either how much it will cost or that the border is almost 2000-miles in length.

What I don't have to wonder about is why CARL chose to leave out the results in that poll you cited that aren't in accord with your positions.  I have yet to observe a situation in which a selective quote was possible that he did not make one.

Most notably CARL ignored this question:
Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes

Date	Favor	Oppose	No opinion
May 21-23, 2010	80%	19%	1%
May 4-6, 2007	80%	19%	1%

So 4 out of 5 Americans favor a program that would give what CARL would call amnesty to those illegal immigrants whose only crimes are due to their immigration status, considerably more than those who favor building an incomplete wall to nowhere.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest,

Please stop the lying!!!

Just admit that the program you support is open borders and amnesty!

I don't support open borders with Mexico at this time.  The economy of Mexico is too dissimilar from our own to allow for a North American version of Schengen to be put into place.  The necessary economic conditions to even begin considering whether an open border with Mexico might be desirable are at least twenty years away, and even that would require Mexico to progress far more rapidly than I expect it capable of.

The reasons I support an expansion of legal immigration have nothing to do with borders, and solely with what I think would be best for the United States.  Why should we stop people who wish to work hard and live in accordance with our laws and society from coming here?  This country has in the past successfully absorbed rates of non-English immigration that are much higher than is currently happening, and I have yet to hear anyone put forth a reason why we couldn't do that now.

As for amnesty, you can count me among the 80% of Americans who support "Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes", but I don't support a blanket amnesty for all illegals and specifically I feel there should be none at all for those who have committed any non-immigration related crimes while here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, please be honest.

I don't know why you insist that people who don't fully agree with you must be fully opposed to you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

CARL, I support the increase in the increase in the border patrol, but by and large I don't support building walls to nowhere since they only shift the problem elsewhere, not eliminate it. Since I've already indicated my support for an expanded E-Verify program and better ID cards to make it more difficult for illegal aliens to gain employment in this country, dealing with the employment of illegal aliens once they have entered this country must not be part of what you consider 'border security'.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, "border" security happens, you know, at a border.

And what about the border of the border?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, "border" security happens, you know, at a border.

And what about the border of the border?

Confusing to Zeno, but Newton was able to figure that one out.

At least you know your limits.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Many?

I don't suppose you actually have any hard data that backs your assertion that illegal immigrants are our greatest crime threat as you seem to assert?

Because here are some links to data that debunk your theory to one degree or another:

Debunking the Myth of Immigrant Criminality: Imprisonment Among First- and Second-Generation Young Men
by Rubén G. Rumbaut, Roberto G. Gonzales, Golnaz Komaie, and Charlie V. Morgan
University of California, Irvine

The Myth of an “Immigrant Crime Wave” by Mike A. Males, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

abstract of Cross-City Evidence on the Relationship between Immigration and Crime by Kristin F. Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

The handwaving that I have seen that disagrees with these asserts, and not without reason, that crime that occurs within immigrant communities is woefully under-reported.  But to the extent that is true, it has no affect on crimes against natural-born citizens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You also continue to falsely assert that all illegal aliens are "immigrants."  Why are you unable to tell the truth?

Because I have not come across any actual data that allows me to distinguish between the crime rates of illegal aliens and legal aliens.  You claim to have some, so if you'd kindly provide actual sources instead of simply claiming the data are out there, I'd be more than happy to look at it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just because the Update thread was allowed to last 330 pages too long is no reason to complain about the length of other threads.  Besides, whatever else CARL may be, I don't consider him crazy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, I repeat, are you asserting that all illegal aliens are "immigrants"?
Yes they are, as any one who can look up definitions in a dictionary would agree.

• immigrant n. a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence

That they aren't the type of immigrants we want in this country doesn't change the meaning of the word.

Oh, and here's one cite (which you will reject out of hand):

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html

That site you've pointed me to calls them illegal immigrants and yet you get all in a huff when I've called them that. Quite a selective case of anger and outrage you have there CARL.

That page spends most of its time pointing out specific tragic instances in which illegal immigrants commit crimes.

The closest that particular page comes to actually trying to put forth a testable proposition is by using maps it makes a vague hand-waving assertion of a correlation between crime rates and % of the immigrant population that are illegal immigrants.  I hope you will agree that even if a proper correlation test was done instead of the hand-waving, it is a flawed correlation to test.  After all, if State A with a population of 1,000,000 has a population of 10 immigrants of which 5 (50%) are illegal has twice as much crime as state B with a population of 100,000 immigrants of which 10,000 (10%) are illegal, I hope you wouldn't begin to suggest that State A's crime problem is due to a higher percentage of immigrants who are illegal.  The proper correlation to test would be crime to % of the overall population that are illegal immigrants.

One opinion I suspect you will reject out of hand is this quote from that source:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's precisely why I favor revising immigration laws.  So that those who are decent hard working people that any citizen should be proud of the fact that they want to come and live and work in America can come here.  Doing so would make it much easier for us to deal with the bad actors we don't want here.

And here's another (unfortunately its old data).  We need more recent data (which is being acquired).  Here's a recent article: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/7d66941722094b51bb4f215a8fe4f3de/MD--Immigration-Fingerprints/

Not really much data at all, and nothing to place it into context.  That said, and it likely will surprise you, I support the Secure Communities program.  The primary concern some people have about it, of it being abused by certain local jurisdictions to engage in racial profiling, doesn't trouble me that much.  Not because I don't find such abuses problematic, but because I'm certain those idiots with badges who would abuse the program would find some other way to be abusive towards minorities if Secure Communities wasn't around.

Oh, and of the 10 most wanted for murder (fbi), eight are not American.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/murders

Only one is noted as being an illegal immigrant and it is hardly surprising that people who have the ability to flee to a foreign jurisdiction might be the most difficult criminals to catch.  The Most Wanted list has never been a representative sample of criminals in general.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

CARL, at this point I must conclude you are either delusional or a parody.  Possibly both.

You are the only one I know who insists that all illegal aliens are immigrants.

A google for the phrase "illegal immigrant" turns up millions of hits, including this story today from FoxNews:

Illegal Immigrant Fatally Shot, Another Wounded in Arizona

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You do NOT support the Secure Communities Act.

You have made it abundantly clear that all you are for is amnesty and open borders.

If you aren't prepared to believe when I tell you what measures I do and do not support, I don't really see much point in continuing to converse with you.  I may still from time to time point out your distortions, half-truths and innuendos, but clearly conversation with you is clearly pointless.

The difference between you and BRTD is BRTD openly states your true position whereas you lie!

Believe it or not (and I suspect you will choose to not believe it) there is not a vast left-wing conspiracy to open the borders.  And if there was, I certainly would not want to be part of the same conspiracy as BRTD.  For one thing, I don't think being a jungle revolutionary automatically makes a girl hot.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yet another sensational but useless statistic from you.  Useless because in order to judge what meaning that increase has, we'd also need to know the changes in both the total California prison population, and to a lesser extent, the change in the percentage of aliens in the overall California population.

Thanks for showing once again that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Incidentally, the SCAAP data used in the GAO report cited by the article is highly variable from year to year and state to state.  By quoting data out of context from that report, I could easily make the case that the problem is either much worse or that things are getting much better.  For example, New York saw a 31% decrease in SCAAP criminal aliens over the same period compared to California's 21% increase.  (Yes, I know the article says only 17%, but the reporter got her percentages wrong.  The 2003 figures for California are 17% lower than the 2009 figures, which is where I assume she got the 17% from, but the 2009 figures are 21% higher than the 2003 figures.)  Conversely, Maine had a 1060% increase over the same period.