ISIS looking at Southern border

Forget Paso, he is Roger35's dad. All he know how to do is insult and write crap about how good everything looks outside his window.
 
I am 51. I remember watching people walk across the Rio Grande when I was a kid. There is a big ugly fence there now and a border patrol agent every 100 yards or so.
 
paso?
really
well your words make you look much younger.
biggrin.gif


based on your age and how you measure a border being more secure then years 1963-1971 were all more secure than 2013 and I am sure 2014.
 
paso
excellent question
it looked like your measure was the number of illegals who were caught by Border Agents.
If that is not how you measure it please tell us what your particular personal measure you use.
 
How many agents were there in this time frame?

I believe that I posted a number of criteria including fencing, number of agents, apprehensions, and amounts spent on security.

This combination seems accurate, but I see the border first hand all the time. I remember what it was like when I was a kid and I know plenty of smuggling tales.

People would literally walk across the river and go to work.
 
I will help you a bit. In 1994, there were 4,226 Border Patrol Agents. As of 2012, there were 21,394. You need to find out how many there were in 1963. I suspect it was around 2,500, but I do not know.

We then should do an analysis of apprehensions per agent don't you think? This seems to be one way of comparing apples to apples.
 
I will also help you guys with this 75,000 number (although this sounds a bit high and the federal fiscal year causes some folks to overstate the numbers a bit). The number of actual illegal aliens (not these refugees) apprehended in a year is running around 500,000 down from 1.5 million several years ago.

75,000 is not some huge "surge" within this context.

This number is also consistent with how many people have been granted asylum each year in the United States since 1975.

So why are these children being singled out and vilified?

This is the real question that you should want answered. You should look at what groups are doing this and why.
 
paso
am I understanding that your idea of a more secure border than at any time in your life is because we have more agents and more hardware?
 
This is part of it, but not all. It is a combination of everything that I listed. I also have plenty of first hand observations both of the border and illegals for most of that time frame. While not impossible, it is much harder to cross now. Mexicans would be smart to fly to Canada and just walk across the border. It would also be cheaper.

My primary point has always been that this entire issue is both false and scapegoating.

There are no similar claims over the Canada border or student visas or the actual ways that serious terrorists would try to enter this country.

Instead, we are treated to the horrors of the brown hoard coming to rape your wife and sicken your children.

Why was there no similar outcry over the millions of asylum seekers since 1975?

And nothing over the Cuban boat people who automatically were given asylum (you know like Ted Cruz's loving dad - although he was not a boat person)?

I do not remember any outcry over Southeast Asians?

I just wonder what makes these 57,000 or so children so damn scary and even worse why they are being subjected to such disgusting amounts of disdain and scorn. It is pathetic really.

I guess finally I do not understand how much more you want to spend on the border? It would probably take 100,000 agents to completely close the border. Do we want to spend this kind of money and is it worth it as a society to become East Germany in reverse?
 
Paso
I get it. You think the border is more secure than at anytime in your life, Facts to the contrary.
and You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.
Thank you for explaining.
 
Here are the facts that support my view:

1. fencing

2. number of agents

3. apprehensions per agent

4. amounts spent on security (this is intended to capture all the various additional measures employed in the last couple of decades like motion detectors and radar balloons)

I think these all point toward a far more secure border, but feel free to find objective and legitimate data supporting your feel that we are somehow less secure today

the reality of the 1960s was that we spent next to nothing on the border because we did not care

and I think you are conceding that the border is now more secure than it was between 1972-2010
 
paso
Pay Attention. You said thre border was the most secure it has been in your lifetime. I am saying it is not.
The FACT is there were fewer apprehensions of illegals in 1963,64,65,66,67,68,69,70 than there were last year and likely this year.
The number of 'deaths" of illegals who dies trying to cross is significantly higher.
The number of illegals arrested here in USA is significantly higher than those years I listed.
Not sure what definition paso is using but the border is not more secure in numbers sneaking in, in numbers of deaths of people trying to sneak in ( for them the border surely isn't ' secure)
and is not more secure in keeping out illegals who go on and commit crimes.

paso
You mention the number of agents is greater and the apprehension of each agent is greater. The rule of thumb for BP is for every one caught 4 more sneak by.

You mention we are spending more money and in your mind I guess that makes the border more secure? So we are spending record amounts in our schools. Do you think that means the students have learned more?

serious question do you doubt the reports of agents all across Texas AZ and Calif? While they are not addressing your assertion that in your lifetime it is the most secure they are reporting it is worse than it ever has been.

In fact they have been warned to NOT speak to reporters on the latest influx
why would that be?
here is one interviewThe Link
 
Does it matter where the link is from? Would it have helped if it came from NPR or Huffgag from which y'all get quite a few quotes? This quote is from an official testifying in front of Congress. That's not enough for you?
wtf.gif
 
What were the number of apprehensions per agent in those years? This is what I asked for and this is the criteria I am using.

It seems to me that if you are going to compare 1963 to 2013 (a fifty year time span) you would use this comparison as your apples to apples measuring stick because otherwise it would not work across the respective eras. I think you will find that the number of apprehension per agent was higher in 1963 than it was in 2013 because the Border Patrol added 8 times the number of agents in that time frame (this is a guess on my part - you need to find the exact number of agents employed in 1963).

8 times more agents should apprehend 8 times more illegals, no? They did not and you know they did not.
 
Husker - I read that quote just as it is, doesn't really matter how they are communicating. Dismissing something just because it is out in open is not good policy in my opinion.
 
paso
Now you are flopping around like a fish dying in the RG.
Apprehensions per agent mean diddly squat to your assertion that the border is more secure NOW than ever in your lifetime.
You didn't say the agents are now apprehending more illegals than ever in your lifetime now did you?

give it up.
The pure fact is there are 8 years in your lifetime when we apprehended fewer illegals than 2013.

You can wiggle all you want and claim that more money spent means we are more secure( this may be the silliest) or we have more agents which means we are more secure ( ask the Agents what they are dealing with) or the apprehension per agent is greater ( which also means the number who snuck through illegally is greater.)

I know you would like to go back and change your assertion to fit how you are trying to defend it now
but you can't.
The border is NOT more secure now than ever in your lifetime and is getting more dangerous .
find another topic to tail on. This one is done.
 
BI
You make me
biggrin.gif


You cite all the measures we now have and say the border is more secure now than in 1963-70. Why do we now have them? Do you think those measures make us more secure? Are gang members with weapons getting in? are drug cartel members with weapons and drugs getting in ( how many of those weapons did Holder supply?)
is there a chance as the CIA warns that ISIS is coming in?
We know for a fact that gang members and drug cartel members ARE still getting in. ISIS? likely

Now in 1970 how much of a threat were any of those?
is there any evidence in those years Mexican gang members and drug cartel members were sneaking in and committing crimes?

You and paso have a funny definition of secure.
 
Can we all agree that the border is still a major issue today and that terrorists can and will probably exploit it? Can we all agree that we need better border security? That is really all that matters at this point.
 
A proper discussion would address the totality of security needs including Canada, planes, student and tourist visas, and Mexico. It would also include how much we are willing to spend and how taxes should be increased to pay for it (if we want to spend more).

I think on the whole we probably spend about the right amount on the border with Mexico particularly since I think the likely threat is far greater from student or tourist visas and even Canada. I certainly am willing to have this open and honest discussion about homeland security (good grief does that ever sound Third Reich like), but I get the distinct impression that this is not what the Tea Party types want.

They appear to want to rant about the border with Mexico and conflate terrorists with the asylum seeking children. They also have zero desire to discuss or propose reasonable solutions. It is a very transparent wedge issue for the upcoming elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top