• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

To all those who said a virtual fence is the answer …

http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=133

Unauthorized Immigrant Population: 
National and State Trends, 2010

As of March 2010, 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States, virtually unchanged from a year earlier, according to new estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. This stability in 2010 follows a two-year decline from the peak of 12 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2009 that was the first significant reversal in a two-decade pattern of growth.

Gee. Another indication that Obama's administration isn't serious about curtailing illegal immigration. :mad:
 
So it's reached equilibrium at about four people out of a hundred being unauthorized immigrants? I could live with that. Crisis over, get back to your normal routine.
 
So it's reached equilibrium at about four people out of a hundred being unauthorized immigrants? I could live with that.

Steady? No, if you look at the plot, it's climbing. How fast, on average, we won't know until a few years from now ... assuming policy remains the same.

Second, that 4% isn't throughout the US. The Peu study found that the percentage of illegals is 7.2% in Nevada, 6.8% in California, 6.7% in Texas and 6.2% in New Jersey. Can you live with that?

Third, I'm not sure the 11 million is accurate. For one thing, it doesn't include the children of illegals ... because they are "citizens". The Peu analysis said that 8% of all births have at least one illegal immigrant parent. So obviously, the illegals are outbreeding us as well. And they are mostly impoverished children, which makes them a burden on the country as well.

Finally, the Pew analysis is based on the Census Bureau's Survey. But the Census Bureau does not ask people about their immigration status, so the *estimated* number of illegal immigrants is derived largely by subtracting the *estimated* legal immigrant population from the *estimated* foreign-born population. Seriously, do you think that a house full of illegal immigrants would provide Census workers with an accurate count of the number of people inside the house? Or that they were even found by census workers in the first place? California is now claiming an undercount of as many as 1.5 million alone. So clearly the 11 million figure is probably a lower bound on the real number.

Here's a website that notes a variety of studies and groups that suggest the real best estimate number is around 20 million illegals, with an upper bound on estimates near 40 million:

http://www.npg.org/CAPS.html

In October 2007 at a Washington press conference, however, Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS - a nonprofit public interest organization) released reports from four of its experts variously estimating that 18 million to 38 million illegal aliens may now be in the US, with the permanent stock of illegals estimated as increasing yearly at between 1.3 million and 4.0 million.

Here's more on that CAPS report: http://www.capsweb.org/content.php?id=57 .

And there are other sources suggesting a number near 20 million is more accurate.

For example, Bear Sterns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States

Bear Stearns' investigators came up with another way to attack this very difficult problem. They made the assumption that the amount of remittances (money sent back to Mexico) is directly proportional to the number of Mexican immigrants in the United States. Other data used for their estimates are the increases of households and school enrollment in Mexican immigrant communities. They conclude that the number of illegal aliens in the United States may well be twice the official number put out by the U.S. Census of 9 million and may be 20 million people or higher.

And here's another analysis: http://www.desertinvasion.us/data/invasion_numbers.html

All coming up with numbers around 20 million or higher. And if the real number is indeed closer to 20 million than 11 million, then we are talking an average of over 6% of the population nationwide being illegal, and over 10% in states like California. Can you live with THAT, marplots?
 
So BAC, is your objection to them being in the USA at all? Or just that they are in the USA illegally?

Because each of those situations have significantly different solutions.
 
So BAC, is your objection to them being in the USA at all? Or just that they are in the USA illegally?

I have no problem with legal immigration.

Now here's my question to you.

Is "citizenship" meaningless to you?
 
BeAChooser, it seems a bit disingenuous to quote a study as if you thought it meritorious and then trash the study when I agreed with the numbers. If you didn't like the pew numbers, why even bring them up?

As far as children of illegals not being citizens, I don't see why that would follow -- aren't they being raised in the same country as my kids? How could my kids claim to be citizens any more than the children of illegals? Is there some genetic component of citizenship I am missing?

An interesting artifact of the math is that by having children in the U.S., illegals reduce the percentage of illegals in the country. Math rocks!
 
BeAChooser, it seems a bit disingenuous to quote a study as if you thought it meritorious and then trash the study when I agreed with the numbers. If you didn't like the pew numbers, why even bring them up?

Because the Pew study shows something that the other links don't. That since Obama took over progress on reducing illegal immigration has stopped and illegal immigration is infact headed back up. And that was the point of my original post.

As far as children of illegals not being citizens

I said no such thing. Under current law they are citizens ... and thus are not counted in the 11 million figure. But despite being citizens, they are still a burden on the country since the vast majority of them are impoverished because their parents are impoverished ... and often don't even learn proper English since many of their parents insist on only speaking Spanish.

How could my kids claim to be citizens any more than the children of illegals? Is there some genetic component of citizenship I am missing?

Why don't you ask the rest of the world, since the US is one of only a few countries that have birthright citizenship. Most countries in the world would say that your kids do have a right to be citizens while those of illegals do not.
 
crickets ...
Excuse me for having a life outside of here in a different timezone and not responding to you instantly. And my life doesn't revolve around you. Learn some patience.

BAC said:
I have no problem with legal immigration.
So you would have no problem if the 20% influx of Mexicans (or whatever it is you claim) into the southern states was due to legal border crossings and legitimate employment. Is that correct?
 
Originally Posted by BAC
I have no problem with legal immigration.

So you would have no problem if the 20% influx of Mexicans (or whatever it is you claim) into the southern states was due to legal border crossings and legitimate employment. Is that correct?

Do you not understand English, Zep? I said "I have no problem with legal immigration." Now answer my question. Is citizenship meaningless to you?
 
Do you not understand English, Zep? I said "I have no problem with legal immigration." Now answer my question. Is citizenship meaningless to you?
Your question about citizenship is utterly ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, so I'm going to ignore it. Oh and yes, I do understand English quite well, thank you for asking. Certainly more so than Punjabi, Swahili and Javanese anyway.

So staying on-topic (this is YOUR topic, by the way, BAC):

OK, you have made it clear that legal entry and jobs for any numbers of Mexicans is fine by you.

So what would be your view if the US government legalised the existing "illegals" in the USA, retrospectively making their entry and jobs legal?
 
Last edited:
I'll answer. Citizenship is not meaningless to me. It is not, however a very useful measure of a person and I do not think that being a citizen of one country instead of another tells me much about an individual.

When Einstein emigrated from Germany to the U.S., I don't think it made him a better scientist. I'm sure you can identify many people of various citizenry you admire. You can also probably pick out lots of your native born fellows you do not admire much at all.

I would say that these arguments always seem backwards to me. It isn't that the U.S. is out adopting people (or shouldn't be) what is more important is that those who come adopt the U.S. If you find someone who shares my ideals about freedom and human rights, I'm not sure how I would go about distinguishing them as native born citizens or naturalized citizens or illegal aliens. I think it should trouble you that if you were unable to produce a valid birth certificate that no one could determine you were a legit citizen. It's not a piece of paper that makes you belong, it's who you are and what you do.

Even if you are native born, I think I would still want to exclude you if you were a dangerous criminal -- maybe by exiling you to prison, which is exactly what we do, citizen or not.

Now, a counter-question for you. Who would trouble you more, a bona fide citizen who was a traitor or an illegal who was loyal to the United States?
 
Your question about citizenship is utterly ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, so I'm going to ignore it.

It's not meaningless at all ... it's at the heart of this entire debate. Which is why your refusal to answer is so ... demonstrative. :D

I do understand English quite well

Then why did you ask me a question I'd already answered?

So what would be your view if the US government legalised the existing "illegals" in the USA, retrospectively making their entry and jobs legal?

They'd be legal then. Right? I already answered that question.

But the devil is in the detail. What makes you think existing illegals are going to be legalized without a fence to ensure border security (keeping this on topic) being built first? Amnesty without first securing the border is a waste of time. It will only invite further illegal immigration and downstream yet another amnesty. Just as occurred following several previous amnesties. Well I say no more. Build the fence first, then we can discuss what to do with those here already. And if it's the will of the people to then grant them amnesty, fine. I'm ok with that. But if its the will of the people to round them up and eject them from the country … as a matter of law … are you ok with that? Is the law even meaningful to you? Hmmmmmmm? :D
 
Citizenship is not meaningless to me. It is not, however a very useful measure of a person and I do not think that being a citizen of one country instead of another tells me much about an individual.

LOL! If the measure of the person is what you wish to use to decide whether to allow them to stay or not, then a large number of current citizens in the US would be expelled. Meaning you don't really think citizenship means anything at all.

It isn't that the U.S. is out adopting people (or shouldn't be) what is more important is that those who come adopt the U.S.

Sure. But that's not what many illegal immigrants are doing. They aren't making the effort to learn English. They are setting up Spanish speaking enclaves. They aren't encouraging their children to learn English (my grand parents did it by insisting my parents only speak English at home … which was also the means by which my grandparents became totally fluent in English). Spanish speaking television and radio is a booming growth industry in the Southwest (and by the way, the news on those programs is mostly about events in Mexico, not the US (other than presenting a highly skewed/biased view of illegal immigration news items). They aren't adopting our culture but trying to preserve/spread theirs (see http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/255320 "Two Californias"). They demonstrate by waving Mexican flags. They send large amounts of money back to Mexico. And many freely admit plans to return there someday.

Now, a counter-question for you. Who would trouble you more, a bona fide citizen who was a traitor or an illegal who was loyal to the United States?

Well just look at the legal penalties for both. I think that answers your question.
 
It's not meaningless at all ... it's at the heart of this entire debate. Which is why your refusal to answer is so ... demonstrative. :D
Your citizenship issues are meaningless to me. And your lack or research is making you look quite stupid just now. ;)

Then why did you ask me a question I'd already answered?
To give you a chance to think about your answer. Rather than just blindly parroting the same response. After all, I would not want to make you look needlessly foolish. (I'll let you do that all by yourself. ;))

They'd be legal then. Right? I already answered that question.
So if they are illegal, why don't the authorities simply toss them back over the border?

But the devil is in the detail. What makes you think existing illegals are going to be legalized without a fence to ensure border security (keeping this on topic) being built first? Amnesty without first securing the border is a waste of time. It will only invite further illegal immigration and downstream yet another amnesty. Just as occurred following several previous amnesties. Well I say no more. Build the fence first, then we can discuss what to do with those here already. And if it's the will of the people to then grant them amnesty, fine. I'm ok with that. But if its the will of the people to round them up and eject them from the country … as a matter of law … are you ok with that? Is the law even meaningful to you? Hmmmmmmm? :D
OK. You are seriously saying that without a 30ft fence and machine-gun towers every one hundred yards along the entire US border, ANY immigration should be considered illegal regardless. Have I got that right? Because that appears to be what you are saying...

Incidentally, the will of the people of the USA means nothing to me in this instance.
 
Like this one at an average cost of $4m/mile?


That's $757/ft. Either there are a few areas where the fence is obscenely expensive to build due to geography increasing the average, or an incredibly inefficient design was chosen.

The other odd thing about these fences that I notice is that there is no barbed wire and no razor wire. What's the deal? That stuff is cheap.
 
Your citizenship issues are meaningless to me.

Take note of Zep's views, folks. And remember he's not alone. Many people on the left side of the political fence in this country think exactly the same thing ... that YOUR citizenship is meaningless to them. Indeed, the guy now occupying the Whitehouse seems to feel that way. So if you keep electing these people to important positions, don't be surprised when one day your citizenship really is meaningless. :(

So if they are illegal, why don't the authorities simply toss them back over the border?

What were you saying about looking stupid and needlessly foolish? :rolleyes:

You are seriously saying that without a 30ft fence and machine-gun towers every one hundred yards along the entire US border, ANY immigration should be considered illegal regardless. Have I got that right? Because that appears to be what you are saying...

I said no such thing. What were you saying about looking stupid and needlessly foolish? :D

And you didn't answer my question. Would you be ok if the will of the people ... as a matter of law ... were to round up illegals and eject them from the country? Yes or No?

Incidentally, the will of the people of the USA means nothing to me in this instance.

There you go, folks. Not only does YOUR citizenship mean nothing to Zep, but he could care less about what the majority in this country might want. And if the will of the people means nothing in this instance, what other instances might it mean nothing to Zep and his leftist friends? :D
 
He DID NOT say OPEN BORDERS...

...he said...

OPEN IMMIGRATION!!

At least that's what I read but maybe I'm a little crazy in the head?

Actually he did say he advocate open borders. In post #4, where he said:

Why build a fence at all?

Why not just ease up and let people flow into the country?

The more, the merrier
 
That's $757/ft. Either there are a few areas where the fence is obscenely expensive to build due to geography increasing the average, or an incredibly inefficient design was chosen.

Or as I pointed out is the case, that average $4 million per mile figure includes the $15 million per mile electronic fence sections that they spent most of the money on.

The other odd thing about these fences that I notice is that there is no barbed wire and no razor wire. What's the deal? That stuff is cheap.

How true. And notice pictures of the effective fence system the Israelis built that I linked earlier. Lots of barbed wire and razor wire. And even the portions of their *fence* system with 25 foot tall concrete walls and observations towers supposedly only cost about $5 million per mile. So it looks like the US government has been massively inefficient and wasteful ... as usual.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom