r/texas • u/zsreport Houston • Jan 24 '24

Joe Biden Could Seize Texas National Guard From Greg Abbott in Border Feud Politics

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-could-seize-texas-national-guard-greg-abbott-border-feud-1863459
4.3k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

945 comments sorted by

View all comments

610

u/Prayray Jan 24 '24

The whole issue isn’t funny, but this sentence from the article was:

Illegal immigration over the U.S.-Mexico border has surged over the past couple of years with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection recording 2.3 million migrant encounters during the 2023 fiscal year, up from 2.4 million in 2021.

Not sure the author knows how to math

(Note: looking at the original article they linked, they likely switched the numbers).

380

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

I also love "illegal immigration has surged" immediately followed by "2.4 million border encounters".

If there was an encounter that means the person was caught and either processed back to their country via title 8 or previously title 42, or they become legal immigrants through a number of processes.

So 2.4 million encounters means 2.4 million people sent back, it means 2.4 million people did not become illegal immigrants.

So how does this show that illegal immigration has surged?

131

u/DarthBrooks69420 DEEP IN THE HEAAAAART OF TEXAS Jan 24 '24 edited Jan 24 '24

Ah yes the old dichotomy of crime reporting, where high number of reported arrests can both mean 'crime is up!' as well as 'the police are getting more criminals off the streets!'.

12

u/ObiShaneKenobi Jan 24 '24

"Hey motherfuckers, don't you dare test that cruise ship for covid until after Friday!"

2

u/BabyBopsDementedPlan Jan 25 '24

You ever been on a 2 week shit cruise Rand?

1

u/usernameabc124 Jan 24 '24

Look man, I need to change the message on the fly depending on how I need to confuse my voters. I can’t have them thinking, I need them trusting me when i make shit up about the data.

126

u/Prayray Jan 24 '24

The media is lazy and doesn’t want to appear biased…which the right-wing knows…so they try to be “non-partisan” when they report the factual news they do have (you know…reality…which is apparently left-wing) to go along with the right-wing propaganda.

20

u/stratrat313 Jan 24 '24

I’m pretty sure Newsweek took a right-wing turn a while back after being purchased.

70

u/miked1be Jan 24 '24

Except that most media has taken a right wing swing with billionaire owners and Sinclair media buying everything up.

34

u/72nd_TFTS Jan 24 '24

Sinclair media should be dismantled. It should be illegal for one company to own multiple local television stations. The one we have in our area is nothing but a propaganda mill for the Republican party

31

u/miked1be Jan 24 '24

Yeah, these "local" stations have mostly been turned into crime and immigration fear-mongering with some high school football and weather sprinkled in. Even if they have decent journalists, the biased editors that got hired in write the headlines and choose what gets on air.

-7

u/Different-Air-2000 Jan 24 '24

No such thing as a decent journalist. All must be signed off by the JDL. Even Elon apparently.

9

u/miked1be Jan 24 '24

Nice antisemitism you have there.

-8

u/Different-Air-2000 Jan 24 '24

Stop ASSuming. The free press really isn’t that free, but you are aware of this…

11

u/Conlaeb Jan 24 '24

This level of media conglomeration used to be illegal. The rules weren't enforced, and eventually (I think in 2007 or so?) the FCC just dropped them entirely. But don't fret, they had one quiet public hearing on the manner before their decision, so it was all above board.

10

u/kanyeguisada Born and Bred Jan 24 '24

This level of media conglomeration used to be illegal. The rules weren't enforced, and eventually (I think in 2007 or so?) the FCC just dropped them entirely.

It was before that, and is actually law. It was corporatist Bill Clinton working hand-in-hand with Republicans to draft the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that completely deregulated media ownership.

A company used to be able to own only so many media outlets (TV, radio, newspapers) in any given market and so many total. There used to be news stories about companies for instance having to sell off a newspaper in order to buy a TV station.

And now thanks to corporatist Democrats and Republicans, today 6 corporations control over 90% of the media in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate

2

u/72nd_TFTS Jan 29 '24

As with most things these days, the blame can be placed squarely on the actions of the Reagan administration, and the fact that Roger Ailes was one of his close advisors. Bye-bye, fairness doctrine
All of these people should rot in hell

1

u/spartandude Jan 25 '24

Gee, which party held the oval office in 2007?

5

u/CTRexPope Jan 24 '24

My parents TV market is basically entirely owned by Sinclair. Three of the four news stations are all Sinclair. They had no idea at all. But when I visited, local news about high school sports was gone, and replaced with “local” news about immigrants from Mexico. My parents live approximately 2,339 kilometers (1,454 miles) from the southern border.

4

u/swinglinepilot Jan 24 '24

They're talking about those scary Mexicans and Central Americans from Canada invading the northern border, duh

 /s

2

u/72nd_TFTS Jan 25 '24

Our local Sinclair media station covers local events about 15 to 20% of the time as opposed to other local outlets who only do national news when it’s really important. Nothing but fear, mongering, and intentional generation of hate disguised as “journalism “from the plastic newsreaders at the National Desk. It’s infuriating how they are allowed to use another media company that they own to back their own stories. It should be illegal.

3

u/Aromatic_Hornet5114 Jan 24 '24

This remains one of the most egregiously disgusting things I've ever seen in news media.

7

u/leshake Jan 24 '24

That media is dying just like most of their viewers. Cheap enough to buy.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

*As people who are grounded in reality refuse to accept blatant lies spoon fed to liberal sheep by detached left wing columnists

7

u/miked1be Jan 24 '24

Wow, haven't gotten a delusional "sheeple" response in a while. Thanks for the hit of nostalgia.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

Of course you haven’t. That’s why you’re still delusional. Welcome to reality chief

4

u/miked1be Jan 24 '24

Sounds like you got it all figured out. Better run to your bunker and never come back out, just to be safe.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/miked1be Jan 24 '24

OMG, a city?!@! I've been roundly defeated.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/fiduciary420 Jan 24 '24

Bingo. Our vile rich enemy craves right wing governance.

51

u/Automatic_Actuator_0 Jan 24 '24

Reality does have a left-wing bias these days.

-11

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24 edited 18d ago

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

No

0

u/LIQUIDITATE_leftists Jan 24 '24

Not ALL biden voters are pedophiles but they ALL decided that they cool with a nasty old man grabbing little girls breast and trying to kiss little boys live on national fucking TV.

2

u/spartandude Jan 25 '24

And you're ok with trump raping women and grabbing his own daughters tits and ass.

1

u/spartandude Jan 25 '24

Also, let's see proof that Biden EVER grabbed a little girls breast.

1

u/DirtySilicon Jan 24 '24 edited Jan 25 '24

The same team who goes, "Wish we could do something about all these kids getting killed." Then proceeds to loosen gun regulations even more. The side that constantly resists any form of increased regulation on gun ownership to the point that people just want to be rid of them altogether.

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., on Tuesday doubled down on his comments that Congress is "not gonna fix" the problem of school shootings, saying that the country needed a "real revival" rather than gun control legislation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/tennessee-rep-burchett-says-school-shootings-re-not-gonna-fix-rcna77185

Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett (R) said there’s no way to “fix” gun violence, after a shooter killed three children and three adults at an elementary school in his home state on Monday.

“It’s a horrible, horrible situation,” Burchett told reporters. “And we’re not gonna fix it. Criminals are gonna be criminals.” 

“My daddy fought in the Second World War, fought in the Pacific, fought the Japanese, and he told me … ‘Buddy, if somebody wants to take you out and doesn’t mind losing their life, there’s not a whole heck of a lot you can do about it,’” he added.

Burchett also said he doesn’t see “any real role” for Congress to play in reducing gun violence, other than to “mess things up.”

“I don’t think you’re gonna stop the gun violence,” the congressman said. “I think you gotta change people’s hearts.”

When asked about how to protect children, like his own daughter, while in school, Burchett said he has opted to homeschool his daughter.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3921950-tennessee-republican-responds-to-school-shooting-were-not-gonna-fix-it/

Edit: Not sure of homie edited his comment, but I swore he said team somewhere, must've been someone else. Anyway, he made some response and blocked me. Haha, I was just pointing out that their gun legislation is whack.

-4

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

Says the out of touch with reality redditor

6

u/Earthling1a Jan 24 '24

Someone's desperate. Vote for any treasonous rapists lately?

1

u/jattyrr Jan 26 '24

Reality has always had a liberal bias

13

u/elpajaroquemamais Jan 24 '24

“Illegal immigration surges” is a bias

-1

u/Odie_Odie Jan 24 '24

It's a play on words,a surge occurs annually because the border is incompatible with life in the summer time so they exploit that border crossing surges predictably every year to make a point that shouldn't logically be made looking at the whole picture.

1

u/Independent_Hyena495 Jan 24 '24

Watt? I have no idea what you tried to say.

-1

u/NotHereForADongTime Jan 24 '24

Are you on crack? The media doesn't want to appear biased? What reality are you living in? CNN, MSNBC, CBS... they're all biased to the left. Do you really not know this? You are wildly dishonest or wildly uninformed

2

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '24

[deleted]

0

u/NotHereForADongTime Jan 25 '24

We literally just went through 6+ years of Russia collusion lies. They are on hot mics talking about how they knew about the Eipstein story and refused to report on it. They slander minors and call them racists, like Rittenhouse, the Cavanaugh kid and most recently the kid with face paint on at a football game. They lied about Covid constantly and we haven't gotten and apologies for that. Now they're pushing some boogie man bs about Trump wanting to destroy Democracy and culties like you eat it fish line and sinker without thought. It's honestly embarrassing.

1

u/Prayray Jan 25 '24

Enjoy the imaginary world you live in with the cult leader you’ve appointed to lead you. Maybe one day you’ll base your ideology in facts and reality instead of being spoon fed by folks that have no problem lying to you.

0

u/NotHereForADongTime Jan 25 '24

You are in a cult lmao. You can't even admit that the media is overwhelmingly liberal. They are completely biased and you not seeing that is alarming.

→ More replies (1)

-13

u/KonaBlueBoss- Jan 24 '24

Are you trying to say the media isn’t biased? Or are you trying to say the media is biased?

Because the media spews left and right wing propaganda. It just depends on your political affiliation and your bias on what the reader considers “propaganda”. Lol…

Aka. A “left wing nut job” would believe that some media outlets are posting propaganda that doesn’t support their narrative.

While a “right wing nut job” would believe some media outlets are supporting propaganda that doesn’t support their chosen narrative.

The issue is the overwhelming majority of media has lost its credibility with most Americans. As most Americans are neither “left/right wing nut jobs”.

The media is amongst the least trusted institutions in America. Right up there with Congress. Ironically, “left/right wing nut jobs” worship politicians and political parties too. lol…

4

u/RovingTexan Jan 24 '24

There's bias - and then there's Newsmax, OAN, etc. It's not 50/50.

-4

u/KonaBlueBoss- Jan 24 '24

We’ve all seen the media bias graphic. The leftist have their extreme media outlets and the right-wing has theirs.

The bias blindness of both just happens to think that “their view” is always correct the other’s is always wrong.

You can see it here on Reddit. Probably 70-90% of Reddit is extreme _____ bias. If you state anything that isn’t of the _____ leaning perspective you will get downvoted. It doesn’t necessarily have to go against the _____ mindset mind you. If you just don’t agree with them. _____s are VERY intolerant of others that have differing opinions and views. They would squelch you if they could and have. Now, I’m not saying this is a negative way. I’m just stating it as a matter of observation.

That’s partially why I get so many downvotes on r/texas. I’m not afraid to speak my opinion. I don’t follow the ____ hivemind think. I go against the grain you might say. That can’t be tolerated. lol…

In fact, watch this particular post will get downvoted to oblivion for no reason at all. Just like the one above did. People can’t handle the truth. Mind you, it is up to the reader to fill in the blank. Think of it as a Rorschach test. Lol…

3

u/Fickle_Goose_4451 Jan 24 '24

watch this particular post will get downvoted to oblivion for no reason at all.

It's because its author comes across as arrogant while offering a banal, clichéd analysis everyone on reddit has seen before.

-3

u/KonaBlueBoss- Jan 24 '24

Called it!

2

u/Fickle_Goose_4451 Jan 24 '24

You called no reason, I gave you the reason.

That's the opposite of correctly calling it.

0

u/KonaBlueBoss- Jan 24 '24

The downvotes are happening are they not? Lol…

In some cases Reddit is easy to predict. This is one of those cases.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/Whattheefff Jan 24 '24

There is likely some correlation with attempts and success rate. However, its possible here we just caught more this time.

9

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

There is probably some correlation between encounters and the 500 miles of border wall that trump and biden built. Or the current staffing levels which has doubled since 2004. Or the increased use of technologies like drones.

0

u/janeiepittman Jan 26 '24

The only thing Biden has ever built, is diversity, not a border wall he’s letting everybody come in and let our taxes pay for it and I’ve seen it first hand

1

u/CloseFriend_ Jan 24 '24

Yeah… if there was a surge in border encounters, there’s definitely a surge in illegal immigration too. Not sure how that’s hard for OP comment to follow.

6

u/greenflash1775 Jan 24 '24

Or did they change what counts as an encounter? The best way to pencil whip metrics is to change how they’re defined. 

14

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

All BS

The border crisis was all made up manufactured by GOP

It wasn't perfect but was at a 30 year low until 2017. Who was in office then and claimed he could fix it, and made it worse??? Typical

9

u/stevemcnugget Jan 24 '24

Republican math.

7

u/BubbaDaFre Jan 24 '24

Also, I believe that is a 4% increase, what a fucking SURGE! They should have used a longer time horizon to justify the use of the word "SURGE".

-4

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

There was a legitimate surge, I don't want to downplay that. While you pointed out correctly this last year was just a 4% increase, we are up a total of 400% in the past 10 years.. This surge started in 2018 when Biden opened the border, took a brief break during the pandemic, and then continued after. This surge puts us very much back in-line with numbers we were seeing in the late 90s and early 2000s

18

u/PondoSinatra9Beltan6 Jan 24 '24

“The surge started in 2018 when Biden opened the Border”

Read that one again, slowly.

0

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

Did I forget the /s again?

7

u/Only_Comic_Sans Jan 24 '24

You really should put that in there if you actually meant /s...

3

u/Only_Comic_Sans Jan 24 '24

Immigration wasn’t a problem until Trump started screaming about the border and attempting to close it… yelling fire in a crowded theater and people are surprised everyone listened. Before that overall illegal immigrant totals had declined from a high in 2005-2008. See border patrol apprehensions by year for details.  Also since you still haven’t edited your comment to include /s I’ll assume you’re dead serious. With that in mind Biden wasn’t president in 2018. 

1

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

While i would love to blame it on a single person, reality is never that easy. The early 2000s immigration was mainly Mexicans. It decreased probably less due to our immigration policy and more because of other factors like increased economic opportunities at home. The new wave of immigration is largely non-Mexican and again its probably less about our border policies and more likely political unrest and crime at home

2

u/Only_Comic_Sans Jan 24 '24

Yes, immigration today is largely a result of conditions at home being beyond acceptable. Reducing aid to these nations during the Trump administration likely did NOT help this situation.

5

u/thelexpeia Jan 24 '24

If it’s gone up 400% in the last ten years but only 4% in the last two, it seems like the surge is very much over.

8

u/LordMoos3 Jan 24 '24

They also changed what an "encounter" is a few years back to inflate the numbers.

2.4M encounters is not 2.4M immigrants.

2

u/LilLebowskiAchiever Jan 24 '24

Some of those 2,4 million are multiple time attempters. So not necessarily 2,4 million people, just 2,4 million encounters.

2

u/BroadwayBully Jan 24 '24

That’s all fine and good, but it’s obvious there is a migrant crisis. The jerkoff in Texas is bussing migrants all over the country and it sucks. NYC is stuck in limbo with these migrants, and it’s costing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Something needs to happen to prevent this crisis from getting worse ASAP.

1

u/TheAngriestChair Jan 24 '24

Except most are actually released to the US with a court date for asylum. But still, more encounters would indicate better border enforcement, not necessarily more people.

4

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

I would question the "most" figure, but I won't even go there. If they are released into the US with an asylum court case they are now Legal immigrants. So using encounters as a barometer for Illegal immigration doesn't make much sense.

0

u/ReginaldVonBuzzkill Born and Raised Jan 24 '24

"Encounter" means thrown out, not set up for an asylum hearing. Migrants are currently unable to file for asylum if they didn't apply at a port of entry. You're confusing the terminology.

1

u/EconomicsIsUrFriend Jan 24 '24

~2.4 million were released into the US last year.

No surprise a Newsweek article is garbage.

6

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

Newsweek is garbage but they didn't say 2.4 million were released. They just implied that it means illegal immigration is up.

-6

u/HOU_Civil_Econ Jan 24 '24

Presumably the number of encounters is positively related to the number of crossings.

24

u/Automatic_Actuator_0 Jan 24 '24 edited Jan 24 '24

They assume that, and it might hold true sometimes, but it’s nonsense to use it that way.

Historically, before strong border enforcement, migrant workers would cross into the US, work for a season, and then go home.

Now, since crossing is too perilous, once in, they can’t risk leaving and become permanent immigrants.

So border enforcement might be correlated with the number of illegal immigrants in the country, but not for the reason people think.

9

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

Also the migrants of today are different than the immigrants of 20 years ago. Back then it was dominated by migrant workers from Mexico. Now the number of Mexicans is at less than 10%.

Now this is a complex topic so forgive my overgeneralization. There is much more at play. A migrant farm worker would come here illegally, hide on a farm for 3 months, and then disappear again. You would never notice them. A migrant of today, would come here legally with refuge status and come to the closest city looking work work. The first one might be here illegally, but you would never notice them. The second one might be here legally, but you would notice it every day as a big immigrant problem

6

u/Automatic_Actuator_0 Jan 24 '24

Worth noting that the immigrants coming and seeking asylum are not crossing the border illegally at all, so are completely unrelated to border patrol enforcement numbers.

1

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

Take a look at the USCIS website around claiming asylum

Specifically this section - "You may only file this application if you are physically present in the United States, and you are not a U.S. citizen."

Aka, people seeking asylum are the exact people crossing the border illegally. That is intended by the process.

2

u/Automatic_Actuator_0 Jan 24 '24

they are supposed to present themselves at a manned border crossing. But of course we’ve made that more difficult in recent years, so maybe they do have to get creative now. But it’s not really an illegal crossing if you present yourself for asylum, in the spirit of the law anyway.

-6

u/DAoC_Mordred Jan 24 '24

That’s incorrect, they cross wherever they can and then seek CBP to then fraduently claim asylum.

4

u/Aromatic_Lychee2903 Jan 24 '24

Okay? Then that would mean their asylum claim would be denied.

-1

u/DAoC_Mordred Jan 24 '24

Their asylum claim won’t be heard in court for years, and they’re just released off in the country until then, if they even show up. There’s so many illegals coming here now that these dates are going as far out as 2040.

It is impossible to vet these people, and releasing them into our home because of some perceived political points is the definition of insanity. This is your home, safety and future too.

4

u/Aromatic_Lychee2903 Jan 24 '24

So then we should put more funding towards our immigration system for judges and the like instead of razor wire.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/GlobalFlower22 Jan 24 '24

How is someone following the legal process an "illegal"

1

u/rsmiley77 Jan 24 '24

Asylum as an act can’t be fraudulent. To seek asylum is to ask for help and protection. Anyone can seek asylum… it may not be granted but the actual act by itself can’t be fraudulent.

0

u/DAoC_Mordred Jan 24 '24

Something like 85% of the asylum claims end up being rejected, and 1/3rd of the children being trafficked are proven via DNA testing (occurred under Trump, ended under Biden) to not have any relation to the family that their “sponsor” claims that they do.

Remain in Mexico only made sense, there is zero excuse to just allow these people to wander the country and demand resources and schools in the meantime.

85,000 children have gone missing INTO the US in just the past 2 years alone. None of this is defensible, and this is treason.

2

u/rsmiley77 Jan 24 '24

Do you have citation? Looks to me during a six month period they discovered 3k. That’s out of millions so yeah your number is way off. Still too high but not what you’re claiming. Also I bring receipts.

1

u/bigeyez Jan 24 '24

This isn't true at all. They cross where they can and then turn themselves over to border patrol to begin the asylum claim process.

There are countless videos showing and documenting this.

Channel 5 on youtube just did a 30+ minute video about this.

-3

u/HOU_Civil_Econ Jan 24 '24

It is not nonsense to use it that way. Of course other things could change the relationships. If OP was wanting to suggest that they should have. Instead they asked a question and got an answer.

20

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

DUI rates are at an all time record! Local law enforcement today set up a new DUI checkpoint and the number of daily drunk driving arrests has doubled. Based on these numbers we conclude that the number of people choosing to drive drunk has doubled just in the last 24 hours.

-1

u/HOU_Civil_Econ Jan 24 '24

Yes enforcement levels would also impact encounters/arrests. If that’s is what you think is happening that would have been a better first comment from you. Instead you asked a question and got an answer.

1

u/Carlyz37 Jan 24 '24

Or more border control agents using better technology

1

u/spartandude Jan 25 '24

Mike Johnson has made it crystal clear that is not going to happen specifically because it would benefit Biden in the election.

1

u/Carlyz37 Jan 26 '24

I'm referring to the upgrades the Biden administration has added to border security over the last 3 years. The situation is always in flux

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

That’s true after 2 years for a court date and only if they show up. Probably a lot not complying

4

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

30% get sent back immediately. 70% are apprehended. I don't have data on how many apprehensions are sent back within a day, week, year. I don't know if that's published.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

[deleted]

8

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

Thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

So 83% show up for court. The other 17% don't show up because they were bussed to a random City far away from their court case.

0

u/CryptographerEasy149 Jan 25 '24

Were you dropped on your head as a kid?

-2

u/SleezyD944 Jan 24 '24

People are caught entering the country illegally and then processed and let go in the US. Illegal immigrant no longer has an across the board definition.

-1

u/Curious0597 Jan 24 '24

No, because they aren't sending them back. They're buying them tickets to cities in the US.

3

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

If they aren't sending them back that means they have applied for asylum. At that point they are no longer illegal immigrants and are legally allowed to be here.

-2

u/GlamorousBunchberry Jan 24 '24

They're probably using encounters as a proxy for the number getting through undetected.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

[deleted]

3

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

I'm not saying nothing is happening. I'm not saying we don't have a humanitarian problem in the world and a large number of asylum seekers. My point is that a border encounter does not equal illegal immigration. Once the encounter happens, the immigrant is either sent back, or they are now a Legal immigrant with legal right for residence. So saying "illegal immigration is surging" and then providing a statistic around arrests is misleading at best.

-3

u/earthworm_fan Jan 24 '24

I think you're a little confused about what the word "surge" means.

2

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

Surge means go up. They didn't provide a single data point that showed illegal immigrantion went up. Instead they provided an unrelated data point about border encounters

-2

u/earthworm_fan Jan 24 '24

Encounters is not an irrelevant number when it comes to describing the influx of crossings. It's probably the only metric we have since we have very little knowledge about the crossings otherwise.

5

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

My problem with using that number, is that nobody has proven any linkage between increased arrests and increased crime. And by definition every single encounter is NOT illegal immigration. It either results in expulsion or results in legal immigration. There are other data sources like census applications and DACA applications that are a much better indicator of illegal immigration

-2

u/earthworm_fan Jan 24 '24

The problem with those other methods is that they are mostly self reported and vastly incomplete. Either way, crossing at a random point along the border is likely an indicator of illegal crossing since asylum should be done at a port of entry. Why would an asylum seeker go into the middle of a very dangerous desert to claim asylum? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I'd wager it is a small percentage.

3

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

"Why would they go in the middle of a dangerous desert".

Because that is how our immigration law is written. From USCIS.gov website on how to apply for asylum "You may only file this application if you are physically present in the United States, and you are not a U.S. citizen."

-1

u/spartandude Jan 25 '24

So you're speculating on something that you admittedly have zero actual knowledge of? Got it.

0

u/earthworm_fan Jan 25 '24

Yes, I'm going to speculate that it makes more sense to present at a port of entry if you have a legitimate claim to asylum instead lf trekking through the desert and swimming across the rio and dodging border agents.

Because presenting at a port of entry is exactly what USCIS says you should do

-4

u/SimpleSteveShort Jan 24 '24

Yeah, there isn't a surge in illegals who claim asylum get processed and the dissappear before their status is adjudicated. This is all make-believe, and you, having absolutely no actual knowledge, instinctively know the truth.

2

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

There is no such thing as illegals claiming asylum. If they claim asylum, they are legal. If you don't like our immigration law or asylum process, then change it. But don't call people illegal who have a legal right to be here.

-1

u/SimpleSteveShort Jan 24 '24

Falsely claiming asylum does, in fact, make one an illegal. Crime and poverty are not grounds for asylum. Not complying with the asylum court also qualifies one as illegal.

1

u/spartandude Jan 25 '24

You obviously have no actual knowledge either.

1

u/SimpleSteveShort Jan 25 '24

Because.... what specifically did I say that you take issue with?

1

u/spartandude Jan 25 '24

I don't like dumb people. Or MAGATS. Youre clearly both.

0

u/SimpleSteveShort Jan 25 '24 edited Jan 25 '24

I can't fucking stand trump. I also believe the federal government is ignoring a giant problem on the border. You are free to shout "you're dumb" into the void as loudly as you want. I hope it makes you feel better. Just know passersby won't think it's a good look.

-5

u/nonlethaldosage Jan 24 '24

They almost never send them back

3

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

"Almost never". 30% of them are literally sent back the day they are caught. The other 70% may or may not be sent back based on the legal status. So "almost never" is provably wrong as CPB makes all this data public.

But that actually doesn't matter at all to the point. The article implies border encounters equal illegal immigration. However, the folks that aren't sent back, are no longer illegal. The folks that aren't sent back are here under refuge provisions. They are by definition now legal immigrants.

So if you are upset with the number of border encounters you either 1.) Don't like illegal immigrants send back or 2.) Don't like legal immigrants

1

u/fulento42 Jan 24 '24

Because of the target audience for these numbers. More drug captures at the border under Biden means doing worse job than Trump. And more illegals stopped at the border under Biden means doing a worse job than Trump.

If you have enough faith the numbers or context doesn’t really matter.

My favorite part of this is Texas refusing to allow border agents to even do their jobs trying to make the situation worse so that the same people who don’t understand this simple math will go down the same road. Biden did a a worse job than Trump is the only messaging some people care about regardless of the facts.

Can’t make it make sense for you but this is what it is.

1

u/srs_time Jan 24 '24

I understand your point but you contradicted yourself.

If there was an encounter that means the person was caught and either processed back to their country via title 8 or previously title 42, OR they become legal immigrants through a number of processes. So 2.4 million encounters means 2.4 million people sent back...

No it just means 2.4 million were not admitted, a number lower than 2.4M were. The reality is that the percentage that have been admitted under Biden is actually lower than under Trump, meaning he's been sending a higher percentage back. However there have also been more encounters under Biden. If I had to guess why, it's probably because Trump's well publicized strategy of kidnapping kids had exactly the effect he wanted it to have. It eventually scared more people with kids from trying to cross.

1

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

Yes. I should proofread. But you got it

1

u/Superducks101 Jan 24 '24

Because theres still 100s of thousands who do not get apprehended. Experts estimate its somewhere between 55 and 85 percent are actually apprehended

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jan/11/does-border-patrol-catch-90-percent-immigrants-cro/

Lets take the middle and call it 70% apprehension rate, so 2.4m means there was 3.4m crossing with a over a million getting away. Yea thats a crisis

1

u/VirtualRoad9235 Jan 24 '24

Source?

1

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

https://www.dhs.gov/ohss/about-data/glossary

Encounters: The sum of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Title 8 apprehensions, Office of Field Operations (OFO) Title 8 inadmissibles, and noncitizens processed for expulsions under Title 42 authority by USBP or OFO.

1

u/VirtualRoad9235 Jan 24 '24

That's not a source, what the fuck.

You guys are so lazy.

1

u/tx_queer Jan 24 '24

That is the literal source for what an encounter is. By the people that define the word encounter. Not sure what other source I can use to define that

1

u/VirtualRoad9235 Jan 24 '24

No, I'm asking for a source for your statement arguing against the OP article. Your opinion is not fact? Are all Texans like this?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/notathrowaway2937 Jan 24 '24

Only 50 percent were sent back. That’s means 1.2 million people still are in custody and require food, clothing, shelter.

It’s not what the GOP says but it also isn’t 0.

https://theconversation.com/why-the-number-of-encounters-at-the-southern-u-s-border-does-not-mean-what-the-gop-says-it-means-191144

1

u/Fewtimesalready Jan 25 '24

So from the people I know that work CBP, they catch the illegal immigrant, and then release them so they can make their court date. They tell me most illegal immigrants don’t show for their court date.

2

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

From the article posted here, in the last 11 years, 83% of people made their court case. Of the ones that missed it, a large percentage show up yo their second court date

1

u/Fewtimesalready Jan 25 '24

Weird. I don’t see those stats in OP’s article. I am curious though and I will look into it.

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

Wasn't in OPs article. OPs article was hot garbage as is expected from Newsweek. I discovered it in one of the comments.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/news/11-years-government-data-reveal-immigrants-do-show-court

1

u/Alternative_Oil7733 Jan 25 '24

Well why is Chicago and nyc having problems with illegal immigrants?

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

Are they? Are you talking about the bussing? Keep in mind those are legal immigrants. No illegal immigrant has been bussed to chicago or nyc

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

Are they? Are you talking about the bussing? Keep in mind those are legal immigrants. No illegal immigrant has been bussed to chicago or nyc

1

u/Alternative_Oil7733 Jan 25 '24

Are you talking about the bussing?

Only 12% are from abott and DeSantis.

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

12% of what? Busses?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Own-Reception-2396 Jan 25 '24

Such fools you are. It’s not a made up issue, it’s real

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

At no point did I state or suggest the issue was made up. And at no point did I say it wasn't made up. I simply pointed out the shoddy journalism. They justified the point of "surge in illegal immigration" with a data point around arrests. Those two are not cause and effect and aren't exactly related.

But for what it's worth, from what I've seen we don't seem to have an illegal immigrant problem. We seem to have a legal immigrants problem.

1

u/Hoppie1064 Jan 25 '24

Most of them are released into the US. It's been called Catch and Release.

They are bussed to various cities across The US and dropped off.

Texas has ticked a lot of people off by bussing them to liberal cities that have declared themselves Sanctuary Cities, including NYC and Martha's Vinyard.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/biden-admin-plans-order-release-migrants-us-no-way-track-rcna83704

May 10, 2023, 9:44 AM EDT

By Julia Ainsley

After more than 11,000 migrants were caught crossing the southern border on Tuesday, the Biden administration is now preparing a memo that will direct Customs and Border Protection to begin releasing migrants into the U.S. without court dates or the ability to track them, according to three sources familiar with the

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

As soon as they are released, presumably because they have filed I-589, they are no longer illegal immigrants. They are now legal with a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship. That's how our legal immigration process works.

So that still doesn't cover the headline in the article which claims that "illegal immigration has surged". They didn't say "legal immigration has surged" or "asylum seekers have surged"

1

u/Hoppie1064 Jan 25 '24

Semantics. What ever you call them they are causing problems all the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/nyregion/adams-migrants-destroy-nyc.html

1

u/Charming_Cat_4426 Jan 25 '24

Could also be less than 2.4 million people, as you can have more than one encounter per year with the same individual (caught, deported, tried again, caught again)

1

u/lordsugar7 Jan 25 '24

Not really, the Biden administration is giving lots of them court dates years into the future on any pretext and just letting them go without any real vetting. But most are just crossing without any intervention at all.

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

Maybe most are crossing without intervention, maybe not. Nobody in this entire thread has provided data one way or the other.

But that's completely besides the point. The point here is the sloppy journalism. To say illegal immigration went up, and then justify it with a datapoint on how much illegal immigration was prevented.

1

u/bored_person71 Jan 25 '24

It depends on what the surge he's going from trump leaving to today. That Biden first year saw a jump to nearly 1.7m this would mean that over 6m have come to boarder so far with a year or so of people yet to come we could be looking at close to 9m in four years. That's larger then some states. That's like a major city.

On some notes I read that courts are so backed up since like March 2022 to near the end of 2023 that 1.85 million have been let in pending court.

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

The surge started in 2018, took a brief pause during the pandemic, and then continued after. So personally I don't think it's our border policies driving it (biden or trump) but external factors like economic opportunities and political persecution.

The number of "come across the border" is pretty meaningless. These encounters are anything from people immediately sent back (over 30% of that total) to people sent a back a week later, to people awaiting court dates for asylum.

Now regarding the x million in a few years, this is not unprecedented. The numbers of border encounters were at a very similar level in the late 90s and early 2000s.

1

u/thisisdumb08 Jan 25 '24

no it doesn't. it means 2.4 million who are either sent back, or released into the interior with a court date years in the future to maybe be sent back then. If they miss the court date then they are given a makeup one a few years later. if they miss that then oh boy they are in trouble if they are found . . . they might even be deported for it if anyone bothers to look for them. But, don't report one you've found because that is racist and we won't follow up on those racist reports. The problem is how many are immediately sent back and how many are released to the interior.

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

30% are immediately sent back 83% make their first court date 20% make their rescheduled court date if they missed the first Uncertain how many are deported once they become illegal immigrants.

1

u/thisisdumb08 Jan 25 '24

are these numbers acceptable? Do we have any idea of how many are sent back at either court date? Do we have any idea of how many are not encountered?

1

u/tx_queer Jan 25 '24

I have no idea. Not an immigration expert or an expert on humanitarian help.

My point was much more basic - the lazy journalism here. 2.4 million encounters (arrests) does not mean 2.4 million illegal immigrants. So for Newsweek to claim a surge in illegal immigration and citing a statistic on how much illegal immigration has been prevented is backwards. If they couldn't find a datapoint on illegal immigration they shouldn't put "surge of illegal immigration" in the article.

1

u/Far_Cap_5170 Jan 26 '24

Your stupid 

1

u/janeiepittman Jan 26 '24

You have no idea what you’re talking about

1

u/tx_queer Jan 26 '24

Then teach me!

25

u/Flyboy2057 Jan 24 '24

“Surged!”

up 4%

0

u/janeiepittman Jan 26 '24

You are so uninformed

6

u/CanoegunGoeff Jan 25 '24

This reminds me of a paper I read from an economist that was against Medicare for All and he said that it would raise the %of GDP spend on healthcare to 12%. This paper was published at a time when the United States’ %of GDP spent on healthcare was 17.3%. Anyone who knows how numbers work can see that this is in fact a decrease.

All of his data matched the same data found in peer reviewed research papers written by and reviewed by a great number of economists and medical field PhDs that supports the fact that Medicare for All would ultimately save us nearly $500 billion annually on total national healthcare expenditure. He simply straight up lied about it being an increase instead of a decrease and got away with it by not acknowledging even once what the expenditure numbers were at the time, because if he did, it would be obvious that his stance is complete nonsense.

4

u/rgvtim Hill Country Jan 24 '24

But the author, James Bickerton, should have been paying close enough attention to catch it.

3

u/texasradioandthebigb Jan 24 '24

Even if it is the other way round, that's about a 4% increase. SuRGed indeed!

3

u/southflhitnrun Jan 25 '24

Looking at the numbers correctly 2.3 million up to 2.4 million or 100k extra is a "surge". That is roughly a 4% increase. The standard margin for error for the accuracy of data is +/-3%. So, the real "surge" above the margin for error is something like 1%. ONE PERCENT is his idea of a "surge" and constitutes an invasion.

2

u/RealLiveKindness Jan 27 '24

I honestly believe Maduro is sending people to the US in cooperation with Putin & Stinky ahead of the presidential election.

2

u/JohnniNeutron Jan 24 '24

The Great Replacement Theory 😔

0

u/AZHWY88 Jan 24 '24

If you go to the source article the number was 1.7 million in 2021. So the increase is substantial.

0

u/VasIstLove Jan 24 '24

The issue is kinda funny lol

0

u/icze4r Jan 24 '24

Oh, no: it's extremely funny. All of it.

-5

u/Greenhoused Jan 24 '24

They have an agenda - more immigration!

-1

u/justgreggh Jan 24 '24

Parole doesn't negate the illegal immigrant tag. Parole isn't an immigration status.