Here is the rate of "border encounters" over the past decade or so:
Border crossings spiked at the end of Donald Trump's presidency and since then have remained at about 5x the normal rate. Is this a crisis?
I think borders should be enforced but it's never been one of my hot buttons. Partly this is because I have a hard time seeing the harm from high rates of either illegal immigration or opportunistic asylum seeking.
Take a look at the past two years. The number of border crossers has been 3-4 million more than it is during normal times, which ought to be something of a destruction test of the impact of illegal immigration and sketchy asylum seeking. But what happened in real life? Unemployment is low, crime in border cities is low, and the total population of illegal immigrants has been flat.
If that's what happens even during a massive outbreak of border crossings, it's hard to get too worried about normal rates of illegal immigration and asylum seeking. If Republicans ever get serious about sensible immigration reform, I'll be with them. Until then, it's going to remain pretty low on my list of national problems.
Definitely not much harm at our current rates. 250,000 new folks/year is basically nothing for a country of 330 million - we can easily absorb that, and can definitely use the new workers with unemployment pretty low.
I figure we can probably absorb about 4 million new immigrants a year or so without issues (legal or otherwise).
The long term (ie, since 1820) net rate of immigraiton in the US is around .7%, IIRC. Which implies a number a bit over 2 million from all sources at current population levels. And we've gone through periods of time when the number has been double that. So, 4 million would get us up near the Ellis Island era, and the country seemed to survive that (even thrive). And of course Americans are having a lot fewer babies these days. Still, we don't seem very good at expanding the housing supply, so that's one challenge.
But I basically echo Kevin's thoughts: it's better to have everyone who enters the country to be screened and vetted. So it's not desirable on the merits to have a nontrivial portion of immigraiton to the US occur in undocumented fashion. But it's simply not a hot button issue of mine (the GOP treats it just like it treats abortion or guns or trans issues), and solutions await GOP wilingness to vote with Democrats on an immigration reform bill.
To Work From Home In The USA My friend’s aunt works at a computer and earns $164 per hour. She has been jobless for 8 months, ndb11 yet last month she was paid $12,142 for a few hours of computer labor.Details Can Be Found Here
——>> https://brightfuture241.blogspot.com/
It may not a high priority for you KD, but it certainly a high priority to a million plus dreamers who may wake up in the middle of the night deported to a country they barely know. You are being uncharacteristicly nihilistic. And what does it even mean you will be with Republicans if they come up with a sensible plan. I mean isn’t that the problem? I think you playing coy is not coming out as you intended.
I don't think Kevin's post has anything to do with Dreamers. He's talking about the "border crisis" endlessly promoted by Fox & friends. Will Dreamers be potentially swept up in this crisis talk if the GOP has its way? Maybe. And that would be tragic. But before we can deal with immigration sensibly, we need to get it back into perspective. It's not a hair-on-fire crisis.
I'm a regular MSNBC viewer and they have been referring to the "border crises" (using that term) consistently for the last week or so.
You say "Border Crisis", he says "Black Lives Matter".
Let the group that is *not* insisting that one single violation of their preferred issue is the end of the world cast the first stone.
The broken immigration system and the "title 42" blocking entry means we've been parking people just on the other side of the border in Mexico instead of properly processing asylum claims. Trump's action in Venezuela was a bit of a disaster and he also ended, or tried to, programs meant to help the nations in Central America, which should lead to less immigration. That, plus climate change, gives us a mess today.
The best thing we could do to lower illegal immigration in better border enforcement, i.e. we need to stop the guns and money from flowing out of the US and to cartels and gangs.
If you take the time to dig up the data, they've been tracking monthly border apprehensions since October 1999. If you build a chart to that month, you'll see a slightly lower rate of apprehensions than the current streak but lasting for ~6-7 years.
Well played GOP. Stop $ aid to Latin countries, making poverty there literally a living hell. So understandably they come here.
Poorly played DEMs. If they come, they get a temporary room and board while their case is heard. Given the hell they face if sent back, does anyone really think they will show up for any hearing if they think there is any chance of being sent back??
No discussion at all about potential numbers coming?
Does a border encounter result in a permanent addition to the number of people living in the country, or does the encounteree get turned around and sent back out? Has that changed over time? Will it change (still more?) when Article 42 is no longer in force?
The chart reinforces my position that when Trump ran for President in 2016 immigration was a made up issue. That stupid wall shit and caravan shit had nothing to do with illegal immigration. Just one big racist dog whistle.
As someone who has lived in CA and dealt with border issues, I commend you and your post, you are "right on".
Immigration is brought up from time to time, but, generally, most people see it for what it is, a talking point with few or no solutions.
If immigration wasn't already a big issue on the right, Trump couldn't have run and won on it (among other things of course). I remember carpooling back around 2000 and one guy always had talk radio on (driver's choice) and it was 100% immigration.
If there was any illegal immigration (there was) than it was not a made up issue.
Hey Atticus. Here’s a video of when your party wasn’t made up of lunatics:
https://www.facebook.com/chroncom/videos/ronald-reagan-george-hw-bush-debate-mexican-border-security/10154528827472814/
Hey iamr4man. Here’s a video of when you’re part wasn’t made up of lunatics;
https://youtu.be/OAtCUHC9GVo
I think the biggest issues with illegal immigration is that you have a large pool of people who can't demand rights like being paid minimum wage, because what are they gonna do -- take you to court?
That's got to depress wages somewhat in the parts of the economy that don't verify legal status.
I'd argue we should have higher legal immigration with better enforcement. Fine employers for employing illegal immigrants and I'd guess you'd greatly reduce the issue.
BTW, it isn't clear what the connection is between border encounters / interceptions and actual number of new illegal immigrants.
Back in 2019 it was “skyrocketing” https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/03/illegal-border-crossings-have-doubled-under-donald-trump/ and something to give grief to for the then-current administration: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/05/chart-of-the-day-illegal-border-crossings-in-the-trump-era/
On a different topic, here's an alarming discussion of the reasonability of using low-yield nuclear weapons,
Just How Radioactive Are Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/just-how-radioactive-are-low-yield-nuclear-weapons
Where do people get the idea that we need more bodies to fill jobs? The 62% labor force participation rate doesn't suggest that.
What we need are a lot of service employers to accept a lower return and provide the incentives for people to punch-in and deal with their unbearable customers.
I have been struck by how many working class, early middle age males that I know who are on disability. Kevin has posted on this before--The participation gap seems to be among this group. I think in the 'good old days' people worked regardless of chronic pain. Now they don't.
Yesterday a group of 20ish Hispanic males shingled my neighbor's roof. The guy supervising was white. Who the heck is going to do this work if we don't have immigration? If they are legal and protected, it's a decent living. If they are illegal, then they run a big chance of being parasitized.
+1
Is the working class less tolerant of pain? In my Dad's day the union worked to keep (well-liked) people on with duties they could handle. Still happens today in law enforcement; they have one of the only credible unions.
IDK, perhaps government disability and supplemental disability insurance are better? Wiki says government disability enrollment peaked in 2014 and has dropped ~10% since then. I doubt intergenerational pain tolerance has changed much, though Abe Simpson would disagree.
Many farmers are in need of workers and are in favor of having at least some programs for time-limited migrant workers, like previous bracero programs That wouldn't alleviate the suffering of family members remaining behind in their home countries or of would-be asylum seekers, but it would help get crops in (aside from agribusiness).
We need to do more to educate those who regard all coming here as simply "illegals," emphasize US & international asylum laws for refugees from terrible situations.
And no president should ever agsun be allowed to illegally block all ports if entry to avoid receiving all asylum seekers..
Back when we lived in MA, they had a guest worker program for apple harvesting season. A lot of Caribbean residents would come up for the harvest starting in the fall. It was all pretty well ordered and matter-of-fact, with requirements for housing, transportation, documentation, pay, etc. I don't recall anybody getting exercised about it. It was hard work and most people were very happy that there was someone else to do it.
And they didn't take away anyone's jobs - as usual, those were jobs almost nobody beyond 2-3rd generation in the US wanted to do. Attempts to crack down on undocumented immigration just result in crops rotting on the trees and in the fields and trouble getting houses built and painted.
“The past two years show that illegal immigration isn’t a very big problem.”
I believe a country should actively select who enters/remains within its borders. Further, a 5 times increase in illegal immigration, is not a sign of good management. The only question, perhaps, is if it’s a problem: on that, similar to many US challenges, (drug over doses, economic growth, inequality etc) I believe pretending these topics are not a problem, only makes the situation worse.
Yep, I'm sure the original American natives would agree with you.
DButch - your point is interesting and perhaps valid, However, accepting your line of argument fully, implies the US has no right (legal or ethical) to control its border: try selling that politically or practically...
"implies the US has no right (legal or ethical) to control its border"
Whose border?
Oh, where to begin ...
First off, border encounters mostly track how many people are actually caught by Customs and Border Protection agents. Caught in the usual sense, as apprehended, and caught as in they are asylum seekers who turn themselves in to US authorities so that they can legally apply for asylum. The asylum seekers are not in the country illegally. They are undocumented in that they have no "official" status, but they have a legal right to enter the US and apply for asylum. So, any encounters are merely people who have arrived at the border seeking to enter the US without documentation, and in many cases by avoiding inspection, but have been apprehended. Hard to make the case that there is a border crisis because encounters are up, without determining whether the increase reflects an increase in attempts or an increase in efficiency on the part of CBP.
Actual illegal entries are, and always have been, a mystery. CBP does try to estimate the number of "gotaways", but these are not considered hard numbers and never, to the best of my knowledge, published - except once, in September of 2017. Under Congressional mandate DHS attempted to estimate the number of "gotaways" that were actually succeeding in getting across the border without being apprehended. The study predated Trump, but was published after he took office and it was just quietly published on the web, without any publicity whatsoever. Why? Because the study found that between 2000 and 2011 the number of migrants who had succeeded in entering the US without documentation and without being apprehended had declined by 91%. That sort of got in the way of Trumps trumpeting about the crisis at the border. You can access the report at: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0914_estimates-of-border-security.pdf I will leave it to others to evaluate the methodology.
There is general agreement that over the past two decades border security has increased dramatically with estimates of the percentage of apprehensions rising from around 40% in 2000 to over 75%. The dramatic increase in encounters in the past couple of years have nothing to do with an "open" border. Increasing encounters argues for just the opposite, increasing security. Same goes with increasing drug interdictions which I take to be an indication that law enforcement is working and border security is improving, not a sign of lax border security.
Finally, there is not enough attention being paid to the composition of the migrant population showing up at the border. I had a job in 2000 that required me to track border apprehensions and it was all pretty straightforward. Young Mexican males made up the vast majority of all apprehensions that year. If memory serves, about 97% were Mexican and males between the ages of 18 and 34 accounted for over 75% of the apprehensions. For all practical purposes many were seasonal migrants looking for work in the agricultural sector and most of the rest were only coming temporarily to work other low skill jobs and would return to Mexico in a year or two. Today family groups make up the largest sector of encounters and Mexicans are barely a plurality of the encounters. A majority come from the Northern Triangle countries where violence is endemic and one of the major push factors that force the population to migrate. They are asylum seekers and legitimate asylum seekers. This is not say that they are eligible for asylum. That is for our government to determine, but they have fled their homes in fear over harm that could be termed persecution. Whether or not harm they fear, legitimately, is on account of a protected ground is a legal determination that they are not qualified, nor required, to make. They are undocumented legal migrants.
I could go on and on, but what's the point?
When I looked at crossings, back as TFG was starting to spew his lies about a crisis at the border in 2016 and the need for "WALL!!!!", most of the crossings were at the normal points of entry and they were requesting asylum. So not many UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.
"Illegal immigrant" is an attempt to scare brainless people who already are conditioned to fear anything different. The "WALL!!!" was a pointless publicity stunt, easily defeated - I saw videos for a while of people coming up on the Mexican side of "WALL!!!" and going up and over in a couple of minutes.
The Border Patrol's own web site had stats on immigrants apprehended in the areas between regular ports of entry. They were pretty pathetic. I proposed that they'd be more effective if they deputized some of those cantaloupe calved super-beings and put them on patrol!
It would have been better to create the chart with the Y-axis starting at zero, because at first glance it looks like the recent spike really is a crisis, even though it's only a 5% increase.
Of course, the media cannot let facts get in the way of outrage-stoking. Even in the "librul" TV news, the 2nd or 3rd story always opens with "And now, the Crisis At The Border!" Numbers? Percentages? Bo-o-oring! Instead, we want to be asking Republican governors, "How concerned are you?"
Why do they do this? Besides the incentive to get eyeballs and clicks, I believe it's part of the instinctive urge they have to always focus their scandal detectors on the "people in power," thus ensuring that every election is as close as possible.