Rape at the Border (and Duct Tape)

[Draco Dracul]

And surely a wall will work better and preventing human traffickers from exploiting the desperate than fixing our broken, deliberately racist immigration system.

A wall, and asylum reforms, and repealing the law that means we cannot turn people back unless they are from Mexico (meaning anyone from other countries who come through Mexico have to be put through a long process).

How do you propose to fix our system? Open borders? Maybe we should send transportation down to Latin America and bring everyone into the United States who wants to come? That way, they won't have to use smugglers?

One how would your proposal prevent what's happening?

Two increasing quotas would mean people would be fewer people using coyotes.

[G-Man]

That wall is going to kill us financially, and we're already in debt.

That's like arguing that spending $50 on a birthday cake is what is going to bankrupt a family.

You're willing to spend ten times what a wall would cost on social services for illegal aliens, so spare me the faux fiscal concern.

This is only the kind of reckless spending you embark on when you have a surplus like we did nineteen years ago, AND WE DON'T ANYMORE. And it's not an emergency if the immigration rate is the lowest it's been in decades, but your right-wing sources will lie and claim it IS the highest, of course, because they want to convince people they're just swarming the border, flooding it. The actual rate of Mexicans crossing the border illegally is very low. It's really more refugees and people fleeing bad and war-torn homelands.

It's not at the lowest it's been in decades. Not anymore. That was 2017. The last three months have had higher rates of border apprehensions that those months have had in at least 7 years (and probably further if I can find data older than 2012).
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-b ... ion-fy2017

It's not Mexicans. That is absolutely correct. If it were Mexicans we could just turn them back.

And they are mostly economic migrants who, if they make claims for asylum, are just doing it to overwhelm the system so that they can stay while we try to get them all processed.

More than half of people being let in on "credible fear" do not even bother applying for asylum once they are in,
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash ... immigrants
and the vast majority of those from Latin America who claim asylum have their claims rejected:
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/491/ (see Figure 4).

I'm asking you. If you agree with Trump this really does constitute "an emergency," desperate and scared refugees fleeing ravaged wastelands, people whose faces in no way represented by that caravan not so long ago, then would you agree, the epidemic of gun violence, which claims hundreds of thousands of lives a year, is not equally a "national emergency?" Or climate change? Which could kill us all if we mess up the environment badly enough? Congress passed a law that banned research into gun violence. Why? I'd love to fund that rather than a useless border wall which they will just tunnel under.

I would not consider it such, but if a President were to use the National Emergencies Act to fund a few solar panels or to fund a few studies, I accept that it would be within the law to do so. Actual gun confiscation would be a different matter, though.

But it's not like Obama did not bypass Congress when they did not give him what he wanted. Ever hear of DACA?