Your welcome and thank you.
. An attempt to equate apprehension rates with immigration rates is a weak argument at best because apprehension rates are more affected by will and manpower than available targets. Yes, even a blind cat can occasionally catch a bird but if he's being kept indoors his chances are severely reduced.
And how would you estimate illegal immigration? Every expert in the field of illegal immigration uses the apprehension number to estimate the numbers that get through. If you have a better way, please let me know.
Of course the apprehension ability of the INS was diminished by 911 because personnel were diverted from other tasks to secure our immediate borders and assist other agencies in their hunt for sleeper cells in the US.
Could you cite your sources on this? I work for the agency that secures our border and no Border Patrol Agent or Immigration Inspector was diverted to look for sleeper cells in the US or assist any other agency. In fact, other agencies were sent to assist us. Our apprehension ability was increased, not decreased.
Interest in pursuing Mexicans took a distance back seat to preventing further illegal entry/overstay of radical Muslims and ferreting out those members of the domestic Muslim community bent on our destruction.
You’re partially correct. Interior enforcement shifted their focus from illegal aliens to Muslim terrorists, but the Border Patrol and Immigration Inspectors had the exact same focus as before. Apprehending illegal aliens.
Any suggestion that programs "long in the works" weren't accelerated by the consequences of Bush's pronouncements are charitable at best and misleading at worst.
Wrong again. I work for CBP. I knew about the program and it’s rollout date, prior to Bush’s announcement. It was not accelerated by Bush’s announcement.
From my perspective Ronald Reagan set the stage in the mid 80's for today's farce. His decision to temporarily decriminalize illegal entry was one of the few regrets that he publicly voiced over the eight years of his administration. That Bush didn't learn from Reagan's publicly professed mistakes is bothersome.
The problem started long before Reagan, but yes, he was forced to do something he knew was wrong. Bush 1 did not fix it, Clinton did not fix it, Bush won’t fix it (although he has done more then the others in some aspects) and no foreseeable President will have the political will to fix it.
Your response of "worksite enforcement" is an odd but not unexpected response. I'm not talking about "work-site enforcement". I'm talking about "residential sweeps". I'm talking about driving into a neighborhood, based on a citizen's complaint or surveillance, and simply starting a door to door search. I appreciate that in a PC world this procedure would come as a shock to INS personnel ("You can't do that!" Aliens have rights!" etc.) but it was, and still could be the most cost effective tool in our inventory. Aliens would think twice about coming if they knew they were going to subject to harrassment and deportation 24/7.
Wrong again. We, in immigration enforcement would not be adverse to doing just that, unfortunately, the vast majority of American citizens would blow a gasket if we did. It happened already, here in Arizona. Your average American does not want us going door-to-door looking for illegals.
It was so in the 1950's. It can be so again today. It just takes an administration with core principals and balls.
And no such administration exists or ever will, at least not in my lifetime.
Most agents I know would comply if given the order. They are tired of the wasted cycle of chasing the importers and paying a fond greeting to the import.
Your right, we would. But it won’t happen, so we don’t dwell on fantasies.
The strategy to defend a small strip along the border will never be economically effective unless there is a public willingness and approval to kill men, women and children within that zone.
Agreed, but the public will never be willing to do that, and they won’t be willing to have us knock on there doors weekly looking for illegals.
The revolving door of apprehension and repatriation increases the learning curve of the immigrant faster than that of the INS. A system of apprehension and incarceration would be an economic monster that we would all regret.
You’re preaching to the choir.
Our problems today at the borders are being addressed as well as can be expected under the prevailing mood at the federal and state level but the interior is being ignored and the safety of the interior is the lure for illegal immigrants. Deny the sanctuary of the interior and the high risk at the border will extinguish the lust to cross
You are correct, but this administration will not enforce the interior nor stop the welfare state.
None of this changes the fact the less people are crossing the border today, then when Bush took office.
In the past, illegals would cross over, work a few months and then head back to Mexico. They would repeat this process when the needed money. The permanent illegal alien population grew slowly. This is what happened during the 80’s and 90’s.
As we increased enforcement along the border, the illegals changed their tactics. Instead of returning to Mexico, more and more are staying here, so they don’t risk being caught, thus decreasing the number of border crossers, but increasing the permanent illegal alien population. This is what happened in the late 90’s until now.
This caused another phenomenon. In the past, your average illegal was a young working age males. They left the family in Mexico, came and worked and returned home. Now, since they are staying here in the US, they send for their families to join them. Over the past decade, the number of children and women has increased dramatically.
The only way to stop what is happening is to stop all welfare to illegals and jail any American that hires an illegal. Once the jobs and welfare dry up, the illegals will head home on their own.
1)Illegal immigration is becoming the third rail of national politics as the consequences of illegal immigration gain political strength in our country. No administration is going to encourage the means to inflate statistics or allow widespread public knowledge of statistics that show a marked increase in rates for fear of opening a debate on the subject.
2)Local law enforcement, a source for statistics, has removed themselves from the debate to escape the increased cost of enforcement of federal law.
3) Traditional public safety nets, such as health, welfare and education, are purposely not documented for two obvious reasons. They don't have a ethical or political problem with illegal immigration and they know that if this factor were reduced, they would lose funding and politcal power.
4)The 4th estate is not willing to provide accurate information for the obvious reason. They support the Democratic Party and wouldn't undermine their cause and traditions. Don't expect an investigative exposes from the press on this subject unless its to expose the present administration for their broad incompetence on border security.
So what are we left with? Local, anecdotal information. Do more people in your neighborhood speak Spanish than did 5 years ago? The answer is usually yes. Do you encounter more Spanish speaking people in the services industry than you did 5 years ago? The answer is usually yes. Are there more children in your local public school who speak English as a second language than there was 5 years ago? The answer is usually yes. Do you, Mr. convenience store owner, think you are sending more or fewer money wire transfers to Mexico than you did 36 months ago. The answer is always more, significantly more. Is there more evidence of border trespass on your private property located along the Mexican border than there was three years ago. The answer is usually yes, in fact, "hell yes" if your property is located in Arizona.
In the end you are the best judge of trends. If you work for the INS in Arizona, you only need ask yourself what is the scuttlebutt in the office and in your community regarding anecdotal evidence of immigration rates?
I am familiar with California and by every measure in California, there is mounting anecdotal evidence that illegal immigration is accelerating rather than stabilizing or decreasing. While more illegal aliens are staying rather than the traditional semiannual migration, for reasons beyond the risk of crossing, the rate of first timers is up and growing. A recent AP article indicates that 10% of Mexico's population now resides in the US on a semipermanent basis and about 20% more are interested in coming if Fox and Bush could just "work out the details".
End of Part One. More to follow.