You said you were affected by the personal anecdotes, right? Those are immigrants already here, who have been for years.

Your comments about parasites and TB are just scare-mongering ... https://disq.us/url?url=h...p;cuid=3677626" rel="nofollow noopener" title="https://www.politifact.com/" target="_blank" class='link_art' rel='nofollow' >https://www.politifact.co...politifact.com/...

We can build on e-verify. First off, we should punish employers to set an example for people who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. But ideally we could have a national id safeguard, similar to lifelock, where we are alerted whenever our social security numbers are used for any purpose.

As for voter fraud, my position has always been that voter id laws prevent more legitimate votes than illegitimate votes by a factor of thousands, and the statistics bear that out. If you want to combat voter fraud, you should start with absentee ballots such as those in the North Carolina election fraud perpetrated by the GOP.

I don't think it's necessary to police every mile of the border but yes, land (rovers) and air drones would be far better equipped to do so at a fraction of the cost of "the wall". And they could be programmed with motion sensors, facial recognition, drug and gunpowder detection, and tunnel finding technology.

The new president of Mexico has agreed to keep the asylum seekers in Tijuana, but that's not a long term solution, and it violates our laws and international laws. After the unaccompanied minor crisis in 2014, Obama worked with Central American countries to obviate the need for the long trek to the border. Trump rescinded the policy - that's why we started seeing the caravans again.

I'm not suggesting we police Mexico's and Canada's airports - I'm saying we need to share the data and technology all North American countries are using to identify and detain terrorists.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145437

You cannot blame one side and not the other.

There are many problems with that idea.

First of all, y'all had two full years of GOP control. If the wall is so necessary, why didn't the shit-eating GOP go ahead and at least start building it? For that matter, if he's a multi-billionaire, why doesn't he use his own money to get it started? The Democrats win the House and suddenly it's a "crisis."

The real problem you have is that Democrats proposed legislation to end the shutdown, and included funding for "border security."

The President refused to sign it because his only acceptable idea of border security is the dumbass wall.

If the Democrats hadn't bothered making any proposals, you might have a point.

BTW, they also knew they could get Supreme Chancellor Ding-Dong to take verbal responsibility for a shutdown in that on-camera meeting. And he did. It didn't take much.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145441

So let me get this straight, if someone survives a suicide attempt, they are not less likely to die of suicide?

lol, now you are just being argumentative.

If 100 people attempt suicide with a gun, roughly 18 survive.

If 100 people attempt suicide by hanging, roughly 40 survive.

Assume 100% of the survivors try again (which clearly is not the case), then of 18, there is 1 survivor.

Of the 40, 16 survive.

Just math. The more chances someone has, the less likely they will end up dying by suicide. So whatever the rate of a survivor of suicide has of not dying by an additional attempt and dying of another reason, it will be double for someone who attempts to hang themselves than shoot themselves.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145423

If the President wants spending that has a valid basis, then convince the Congress, our representatives, to spend through the appropriations process like every other expenditure. Don't waste money by paying some federal workers to stay at home on a paid vacation while at the same time requiring others to work without pay.

Either you have the votes or not - like everything else.

It is actually a good thing that we should not waste billions of dollars (Trump says the first 5 is only a start) on an undefined, and as yet unplanned "wall" that has not gone through the normal appropriations process, and is nothing more than an unconstrained multi-billion dollar slush fund to pay for something that Trump and his nauseating band of chanting liars repeatedly lied about Mexico paying for.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145413

Sorry funky but, using all caps, you attacked the fact that I pointed out the overwhelming majority of individuals who are currently incarcerated in the USA are not held in federal prisons. Therefore using federal prison data do describe the much larger non-federal population might be an error.

Moreover, your post was in support of the notion that Illegal aliens are more criminal than citizens and legal residents yet you didn't use a population known to be representative of all or even a significant fraction of inmates in the USA.

That matters because you're talking about vastly different conclusions that result from the immigration status of only a few thousand individuals.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145432

He did say that and Mexico also said that. What he really needs to do is to simplify his language because apparently the average person can't handle abstract thinking. People seem to believe he meant that Mexico was going to write a check to pre-pay for the wall. That's not how it works.

One of the ways Mexico is going to pay for it is in reduced remittances. Mexican citizens send home between $20-$30 billion a year in remittances. That's $20-$30 billion a year that's leaving the U.S. economy never to come back and entering the Mexican economy. If a wall can reduce that amount by even a fraction it doesn't take all that long to cover $5 billion. That's money Mexico is essentially "paying" to the U.S. to fund it.

I know that's not as fun as claiming he's a liar but that's the way it is. Obama got the same benefit when he wanted the same wall and the same Democrats voted for it.

I don't know if he hires illegals or not but it has nothing to do with this topic.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145439

"Nearly 95 percent of foreign nationals in federal prison are illegal aliens,"

OOOH, this makes them all sound like dangerous criminals, doesn't it?

So, let's look at the report, and find out why they are in prison:

"A total of 58,766 known or suspected aliens were in in DOJ custody at the end of FY 2017,
including 39,455 persons in BOP custody and 19,311 in USMS custody. Of this total, 37,557 people had been confirmed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be aliens (i.e., non-citizens and non-nationals), while 21,209 foreign-born people were still under investigation by ICE to determine alienage.

Among the 37,557 confirmed aliens, 35,334 people (94 percent) were unlawfully present. These numbers include a 92 percent unlawful rate among 24,476 confirmed aliens in BOP custody and a 97 percent unlawful rate among 13,081 confirmed aliens in USMS custody."

So, the finding is that 94% of all illegal aliens that are in federal prison are not there because they are dangerous, but because...wait for it...they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!

BOO. Scared ya, didn't they????

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145419

It's not a study to see if a wall works, it's to see if it's cost effective and appropriate.

For $5.7 billion you could pay 10,000 border patrol agents $50k a year for 10 years and still have almost a billion dollars left to outfit and supply them.

These agents would have economic impact on local economies and of course generate local, state, and federal income from taxes. Oh,and also secure the border.

So sell me on why a partial wall or down-payment (or whatever) is better than hiring more border agents.

I didn't' say walls don't work. Lots of businesses work, but if you want me to invest in your business you'd better come at me with more than "if you don't invest in my business you must believe that businesses always fail" rhetoric.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145415


But if you take two groups with equal rates of criminal activity and you check both groups to see that they have no criminal record. With one group, if they are citizens, there is nothing further to do based on that fact alone. But with the other group, persons applying for entry to the US, anyone who cannot substantiate that they have no criminal record, you say: sorry, you cannot enter. Then the people that enter will have a lower likelihood of committing crimes than the people that are entering invisibly now.

So, the police have fewer criminals to deal with then they have today.

It's obvious. Control the border. Control who enters. Fewer criminals enter.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145425

My bad - I was focused on the prison statistics, and failed to address your point.

One statistic offered is 1167 illegal immigrants charges with homicide in Texas over an 8 year period. But we don't know how many of those were convicted, how many involved American victims, how many were Mexican or Central American, or how many were in the country illegally due to border crossing between ports of entry. Texas has a natural border, so it's not even clear if the 'wall' would include the state at this point.

I agree that the drugs are coming from Mexican and Central American cartels - I just don't believe they are coming between ports of entry, and if they are it's by tunnel. I don't see how a wall makes a difference there.

Link: http://www.vin3.org/index.php?c=article&cod=34161&lang=EN#vin3Comment-145434