• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Border Sheriffs: There is No Crisis and We Don’t Want Trump’s Wall

Worst crisis that I've ever seen?

Would you care to expand on that statement?

Illegal immigration is at the lowest it has been in 20 years, meaning that 20 years ago, 19 years ago, 15 years ago, 8 years ago, 5 years ago etc. were all worse crisis that is presently being felt. Right there, your statement is wrong.

Here is a crisis that is truly a worst crisis that I've ever seen:

The spike in reported hate crimes comes amid Trump’s first year in office.

The report found that nearly 58 percent of incidents were motivated by race, ethnicity, or ancestry. Almost 22 percent were motivated by religion, and nearly 16 percent were motivated by sexual orientation. The rest were motivated by disability, gender, gender identity, and multiple kinds of bias.

About 57 percent of reported hate crimes were crimes against persons — mostly assault and intimidation, but also some murders and rapes. About 43 percent were crimes against property, particularly vandalism but also larceny-theft, robbery, and burglary. There’s some overlap between these categories, meaning some hate crimes can involve, say, both assault and robbery.

Even if the increase is in part a result of better reporting, some of the numbers — such as the sharp increase in anti-Jewish crimes as well as anti–Hispanic and Latino crimes — are alarming.

The broader context is crucial here: The report covers the first year of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House, and he’s been repeatedly criticized, from his campaign to his presidential statements and tweets, of stoking racist sentiment, particularly against immigrants and refugees.

It wasn't my statement. It was a statement by BP agent Fernando Grijalva.
But I would expect that:
a) he has a pretty good grip on his own opinion and had good reasons for it
b) it's more than a matter of numbers
c) how many are apprehended as opposed to how may are not
and
d) it's also a matter of exactly WHO is coming across the border ... i.e. the type of person. More women and children these days.
 
The CBS article said "Last year, border agents apprehended 52,000 people in this area alone, an increase of more than 1,000 apprehensions a month over the previous year. Many are women and children."

Are you trying to defend Agent Grijalva's claim that this is the "worst crisis" he's ever seen? For some reason, 52000 apprehensions in ONE YEAR seems to me to be less of a crisis than 53,000 in FOUR MONTHS - but that's just me.
 
It wasn't my statement. It was a statement by BP agent Fernando Grijalva.
But I would expect that:
a) he has a pretty good grip on his own opinion and had good reasons for it
b) it's more than a matter of numbers
c) how many are apprehended as opposed to how may are not
and
d) it's also a matter of exactly WHO is coming across the border ... i.e. the type of person. More women and children these days.

It is one man's opinion and disputed by many other border agents

Here is an interesting video to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COC_mqnCEQc
 
The statement by Agent Grijalva does seem a bit odd. He says he has worked during the terms of six presidents, which would be Trump, Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I and Reagan. One must ask where he was in 2000 and 2006 when the Border Patrol stopped more than 1.6 million people just on the southwestern border.

Approximately 300,000 were caught in the same area in 2018. How does that drop in apprehensions equate to the "worst crisis" this guy has ever seen?


Watch this FULL video regarding Grijalva's statement as well as other information about the wall.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-agents-apprehending-illegal-immigrants-working-without-pay-during-shutdown/
 
There are Sheriffs who say no wall is needed. There are Sheriffs who say walls work and we need more.
Some say there is a crisis. Some say there is not.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/walls-wo...-dropped-by-91-percent-thanks-to-border-fence

imo, we have a porous border. Illegal crossings go up and they go down for various reasons. I would suggest those who believe the wall and other security measures is a waste of public dollars take a look at some of the projects Congress has funded. No waste there, nope. :lamo This is by no means a complete list.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...-explodes-under-republicans-column/792588002/
Perhaps the most egregious earmark is the $16.7 million for the East-West Center, added by Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii (no relation to the author). It constituted the entire appropriation for the organization after the president’s budget and the House both zeroed it out. The center was created in 1960 over the objections of the State Department. It should be able to stand on its own without taxpayer support 58 years later.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...he-floodgates-on-pork-barrel-spending-in-2018

https://www.rd.com/culture/wasteful-government-spending-examples/
 
One person can't, but all nine Congressman from border districts probably can and all nine of them oppose the wall:


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46815569

And one of those Congressmen just happens to be a REPUBLICAN!!!!

from the quoted article:

"I think building a concrete structure sea to shining sea is the most expensive and least effective way to do border security," said Will Hurd, a Republican congressman whose district has the longest border with Mexico.
 
it's a spurious argument because native citizens commit more crimes per capita than undocumented. Take any group a large amount of people and somebody is going to commit a crime. Even legal immigrants they're going to be crimes committed. The police stopped at you have to ban all traffic to and from this country. Apparently you cannot grasp the absurdity of your argument

lol...ok!!!!!!!
 
"worst crisis that I've seen" doesn't constitute an emergency to you? Wanna bet it does to Fernando Grijalva?


One man's view doesn't refute the statistics. There might be some hot spots, but so what. The operative word is "national", there is no national emergency.
 
WOW, two whole Sheriffs.

Well I guess that settles it then.


Well, if you can demonstrate with evidence there is a "national emergency", please offer it.

The statistics prove otherwise, though.
 
When all else fails, drag out the handy dandy Race Card.


When all else fails, trot out spurious logic, false comparisons, and a failure to grasp a larger picture.
 
Actually, it’s two sheriffs who are responsible for large stretches of the border.


You’re two for two being wrong.

You would need to actually point that out first, seeing as trying to sell this as some sort of complete authority on why we don't need a wall in the first place. Is probably one of the most asinine positions I've seen on this site in a long time.
 
Why not, Trump does? And what part of “here in our county” didn’t you get?

He's the duly-elected POTUS, not some jerkwater, democrat sheriff.

How ridiculous can you get?
 
That's right because if what one liberal/progressive person says represents us all. You get my drift?

It's more like how people are trying to sell it that's doing all the damage to the actual members of the liberal/progressive body.
 
Actually, he has the support of maybe a third of the country who’d vote for Adolf Hitler if he’d had an (R) next to his name and that’s about it.

Lying with a dash of hyperbolism... how quaint.
 
One man's view doesn't refute the statistics. There might be some hot spots, but so what. The operative word is "national", there is no national emergency.

"Border Patrol agents say they can’t be much clearer: They want more walls along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In a survey conducted by the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union, they overwhelmingly supported adding a “wall system” in strategic locations, embracing President Trump’s argument that it will boost their ability to nab or deter would-be illegal immigrants.
...
The NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found just the opposite: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.
Brandon Judd, president of the NBPC, said that finding directly contradicts a March 22 report by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which looked at data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection — the Homeland Security Agency that oversees the Border Patrol — and concluded that agents didn’t want more fencing."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/border-patrol-agents-back-trump-wall-survey-finds/
 
You would need to actually point that out first, seeing as trying to sell this as some sort of complete authority on why we don't need a wall in the first place. Is probably one of the most asinine positions I've seen on this site in a long time.
If you’re unable to comprehend what others post, save yourself the embarrassment of making stupid statements like the above.

You apparently missed the fact that OP’s initial post included statements by two (2) sheriffs, not one, responsible for large sections of the southern border, who don’t support building the wall. My comment to you was only meant to bring that to your attention.

You’re welcome.
 
National emergency my ass.

Two bozos share their stupid opinions. Is that supposed to mean all sheriffs and border patrol agents opposed border barrier protections? I doubt it. I don't think everybody takes that dumb position.
 
Both Chuck and Nancy voted for a wall to be built in 2006. IIRC it was about 700 miles worth. A larger length-ed barrier than Trumps 300 some odd. That bill was passed with a bi-partisan vote.

Maybe they have seen how ineffective the fencing/wall is and have decided it is not worth the 25 billion we can't afford to spend on something that won't work. Of course if a Goper changes their mind it is a good decision, but if a Dem changes their mind it is flip flopping.
 
Lying with a dash of hyperbolism... how quaint.

Oh, you mean the thing Trump does that his base loves so much?

Sorry bud, he's practically got a trademark on that.
 
Back
Top Bottom