The left won't believe but it doesn't matter, because they don't really care...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/32012/white-house-hits-back-crisis-border-numbers-joseph-curl

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

I have no doubt that many more Central Americans are trying to get to our country, based on the violence in their homelands. The first thing I would like to hear from the Administration and the Democrats is what are we trying to do to help the governments of the "source countries" rein in that violence. If we want a long-term solution, it seems like that is where we have to start. I would note that the continual aspersions cast about Latinos from POTUS probably does not help in that regard.

In the short-term, my questions are:

1.What evidence is there that gangs, cartels or terrorists are using asylum seekers and "run-of-the-mill" immigrants to do their dirty work? Notably, the fact sheet makes those assertions, but does not attach numbers to it. Not saying it doesn't happen or that I have any idea the size of the problem. I am saying I don't trust the administration's bald assertions about anything and would like to understand the evidence behind this contention.

2. What is the number of immigrants/asylum seekers in this country who have disappeared and failed to appear at required hearings after they have been "caught and released?" What percentage is that of the total population that has been caught and released? Is that percentage rising and falling as the immigration service tries to improve the attendance rate? The fact sheet focuses almost exclusively on the percentage increase in some of these categories from previous years. That is useful information-it shows a growing problem-but it is no where near the full story. If the total number of confirmed gang members who were caught and released then failed to appear went from 1 to 10, I wouldn't like it, but it is not a crisis. If that number went from 1,000 to 10,0000 it calls for action. But the percentage increase from previous years is a 1,0000 5 in each case. I also note that the stats use different base line years depending on what they are measuring. There may be very good reasons for that, but it looks suspiciously like cherry picking to me.

3. Given that the administration has been focused on this very issue since before it was an administration and had to know that a new zero tolerance policy would have the collateral impact that is driving the coverage now, how come it did not come up with a plan to minimize the damage?

4. As I understand it if an asylum seeking family presents at a port of entry (there are supposedly 48 on the southern border), they are "caught and released" without being separated. If the same family presents themselves to a regular border patrol station, they are detained and separated. Why the difference?

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

---

Tough to face the truth when it doesn't fit your agenda and narrative, isn't it?

Booray said:

---

...The first thing I would like to hear from the Administration and the Democrats is what are we trying to do to help the governments of the "source countries" rein in that violence....

---

Let's just invade all the Central American countries, make them part of America, then nobody will have to leave to come to America because they will already be in America. Then refugees from South America wouldn't have as far to go, and we would have an extra border with Mexico so the drug cartels would be able to double up. Everybody's happy!

Why is it our job to fix other countries so that they won't come here?

Johnny Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

---

Tough to face the truth when it doesn't fit your agenda and narrative, isn't it?

---

Truth and this administration have no relationship. I read the fact sheet. It convinced me that there is an increase in Central American immigrants and asylum seekers. I am not discounting how big a problem that could be, but nothing about the fact sheet demonstrates how big a problem it actually is.

Booray said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

---

Tough to face the truth when it doesn't fit your agenda and narrative, isn't it?

---

Truth and this administration have no relationship. I read the fact sheet. It convinced me that there is an increase in Central American immigrants and asylum seekers. I am not discounting how big a problem that could be, but nothing about the fact sheet demonstrates how big a problem it actually is.

---

IMO the fact that it is occurring is a problem. The fact sheets give some startling numbers...look at the percentage increases...

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

---

Tough to face the truth when it doesn't fit your agenda and narrative, isn't it?

---

Truth and this administration have no relationship. I read the fact sheet. It convinced me that there is an increase in Central American immigrants and asylum seekers. I am not discounting how big a problem that could be, but nothing about the fact sheet demonstrates how big a problem it actually is.

---

IMO the fact that it is occurring is a problem. The fact sheets give some startling numbers...look at the percentage increases...

---

Do you even try to understand what other people post?

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

---

Tough to face the truth when it doesn't fit your agenda and narrative, isn't it?

---

Truth and this administration have no relationship. I read the fact sheet. It convinced me that there is an increase in Central American immigrants and asylum seekers. I am not discounting how big a problem that could be, but nothing about the fact sheet demonstrates how big a problem it actually is.

---

IMO the fact that it is occurring is a problem. The fact sheets give some startling numbers...look at the percentage increases...

---

Do you even try to understand what other people post?

---

He said that he doesn't understand how big of a problem it is....I'm saying that fact that it IS, is a problem and is a big problem.

Do you understand?

I'll never stop being amazed at how, less than 10yrs after this country was brought to its knees by ultra-rich bankers, Republicans managed to get their followers to look around and blame our problems on poor brown people. Y'all get that this hyper focus on the issue of (non-white) immigration is just a deflection so that they can keep on screwing us, right? Our healthcare system sucks and is the most expensive in the First World by a large margin, education is outrageously expensive and the debt it generates is a huge drag on the economy, trillion+ $ annual deficits have become par for the course (remember when Republicans cared about that? Me neither), naked corruption aided and abetted by the current ruling party reigns supreme in DC, we endure mass shooting events with double digit death-tolls every week it seems like. But sure, the #1 issue we face in this country is too many non-whites are coming here to try and make a living with menial labor...

"Convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

butbutbut.....Texas Monthly!!!!!

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

---

Tough to face the truth when it doesn't fit your agenda and narrative, isn't it?

---

Truth and this administration have no relationship. I read the fact sheet. It convinced me that there is an increase in Central American immigrants and asylum seekers. I am not discounting how big a problem that could be, but nothing about the fact sheet demonstrates how big a problem it actually is.

---

IMO the fact that it is occurring is a problem. The fact sheets give some startling numbers...look at the percentage increases...

---

Do you even try to understand what other people post?

---

He said that he doesn't understand how big of a problem it is....I'm saying that fact that it IS, is a problem and is a big problem.

Do you understand?

---

Here is what I understand:

How fast a problem is growing is not the same thing as the size of the problem and is not the only indicator of how big the problem might become. So the fact sheet only tells part of the story.

You will swallow anything the POTUS spills as the whole truth. I would like to understand what he is saying in context with other relevant information.

HuMcK said:

---

I'll never stop being amazed at how, less than 10yrs after this country was brought to its knees by ultra-rich bankers, Republicans managed to get their followers to look around and blame our problems on poor brown people. "

---

Poor people = Democrat votes.

Democrats in power = higher taxes, regulations, poor economy.

Higher taxes, regulations, poor economy = limited opportunity for ourselves, our children and our future.

There you go.

If they voted Republican, you and Democrats would have put up a huge wall 20 years ago.

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Johnny Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

---

Tough to face the truth when it doesn't fit your agenda and narrative, isn't it?

---

Truth and this administration have no relationship. I read the fact sheet. It convinced me that there is an increase in Central American immigrants and asylum seekers. I am not discounting how big a problem that could be, but nothing about the fact sheet demonstrates how big a problem it actually is.

---

IMO the fact that it is occurring is a problem. The fact sheets give some startling numbers...look at the percentage increases...

---

Do you even try to understand what other people post?

---

He said that he doesn't understand how big of a problem it is....I'm saying that fact that it IS, is a problem and is a big problem.

Do you understand?

---

Here is what I understand:

How fast a problem is growing is not the same thing as the size of the problem and is not the only indicator of how big the problem might become. So the fact sheet only tells part of the story.

You will swallow anything the POTUS spills as the whole truth. I would like to understand what he is saying in context with other relevant information.

---

Anyone who thinks that illegal immigration is not a big problem is just not paying attention. I don't just listen to Trump...in fact, I rarely take what he says at face value. In addition to reading multiple sources, I also have anecdotal information with family (legal BTW) living in the RGV.

Booray said:

---

2. What is the number of immigrants/asylum seekers in this country who have disappeared and failed to appear at required hearings after they have been "caught and released?" What percentage is that of the total population that has been caught and released?

4. As I understand it if an asylum seeking family presents at a port of entry (there are supposedly 48 on the southern border), they are "caught and released" without being separated. If the same family presents themselves to a regular border patrol station, they are detained and separated. Why the difference?

---

It's about 40 percent, according to a pro bono group that works with immigrants.

According to Sessions, the families who are separated are the ones who cross illegally.

Lopez Obrador is poised to win next month and his coalition will win the legislative body of Mexico

failed state creep (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala et al) will be virtually assured

let it marinate as to scope of northward immigration that we will have to deal with this century

corncob pipe said:

---

Lopez Obrador is poised to win next month and his coalition will win the legislative body of Mexico

failed state creep (Venezuela, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala et al) will be virtually assured

let it marinate as to scope of northward immigration that we will have to deal with this century

---

The left is counting on it

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

2. What is the number of immigrants/asylum seekers in this country who have disappeared and failed to appear at required hearings after they have been "caught and released?" What percentage is that of the total population that has been caught and released?

4. As I understand it if an asylum seeking family presents at a port of entry (there are supposedly 48 on the southern border), they are "caught and released" without being separated. If the same family presents themselves to a regular border patrol station, they are detained and separated. Why the difference?

---

It's about 40 percent, according to a pro bono group that works with immigrants.

According to Sessions, the families who are separated are the ones who cross illegally.

---

40% is way too high. I had read that the system was having some success with modernized tracking systems; I don't know if that is true or if that number reflects the improvement. I also wonder about chipping the immigrant/asylum seeker as a condition of release. And I am pretty sure that if we cut the wait times, the attendance would improve. But if we can't reduce that number, I would agree that "catch and release" needs to be modified.

As to Sessions, he knows that those who present at ports of entry are not crossing illegally. From what I have read, however, we have closed many ports of entry and those that are open have wait times of days. Presenting yourself to border patrol outside a port of entry with the intention of seeking asylum is not functionally different. It is well within his discretion to treat the subset of voluntary presentments the same wherever they present.

At the end of the day I guess my point is that the fact of increasing Central American migration does not absolve the richest nation on the face of the earth of its obligation to treat children humanely. At least some in the administration appear to relish the fact that they are not doing so; others seem just not to care.

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

I have no doubt that many more Central Americans are trying to get to our country, based on the violence in their homelands. The first thing I would like to hear from the Administration and the Democrats is what are we trying to do to help the governments of the "source countries" rein in that violence. If we want a long-term solution, it seems like that is where we have to start. I would note that the continual aspersions cast about Latinos from POTUS probably does not help in that regard.

---

So now we need to fix Central American violence?

We're still working on the Middle East and haven't even started on Africa yet

We're gonna need a bigger boat

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

I have no doubt that many more Central Americans are trying to get to our country, based on the violence in their homelands. The first thing I would like to hear from the Administration and the Democrats is what are we trying to do to help the governments of the "source countries" rein in that violence. If we want a long-term solution, it seems like that is where we have to start. I would note that the continual aspersions cast about Latinos from POTUS probably does not help in that regard.

---

So now we need to fix Central American violence?

We're still working on the Middle East and haven't even started on Africa yet

We're gonna need a bigger boat

---

We are going to spend a ton of money on this any way you look at it.

Build a wall and deal with those who get through-expensive.

Don't change anything-expensive

Don't build a wall, but try to improve our processing and judicial capabilities-expensive

Giving people a reason to stay put might be the cheapest alternative.

Booray said:

---

cBUrurenthusism said:

---

Booray said:

---

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

I have no doubt that many more Central Americans are trying to get to our country, based on the violence in their homelands. The first thing I would like to hear from the Administration and the Democrats is what are we trying to do to help the governments of the "source countries" rein in that violence. If we want a long-term solution, it seems like that is where we have to start. I would note that the continual aspersions cast about Latinos from POTUS probably does not help in that regard.

---

So now we need to fix Central American violence?

We're still working on the Middle East and haven't even started on Africa yet

We're gonna need a bigger boat

---

We are going to spend a ton of money on this any way you look at it.

Build a wall and deal with those who get through-expensive.

Don't change anything-expensive

Don't build a wall, but try to improve our processing and judicial capabilities-expensive

Giving people a reason to stay put might be the cheapest alternative.

---

You can't fix extreme poverty or the side effects of such

Its not the poverty that drives many of these people here-its the violence.

I don't see any reason Central American nations are destined to poverty or violence. Costa Rica and Panama seem to do ok; further to the south Colombia is a success story for regaining control from cartels.

Let's be clear. Trump didn't make the law, he is enforcing the law as it is. If the Democrats really wanted things to change, they would get together with the GOP and fix the law. But, it is conveniently kept there so they can keep blaming Trump.

What about the sobbing children?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Let's be clear. Trump didn't make the law, he is enforcing the law as it is. If the Democrats really wanted things to change, they would get together with the GOP and fix the law. But, it is conveniently kept there so they can keep blaming Trump.

---

What is the statute number for the law that needs to be repealed?

still waiting

According to POTUS and most posters on here, he is just following a Democrat passed law. To fix it we need to "change the law." Can anyone tell me what law needs to be changed?

This should not be that difficult. What law does the POTUS need changed to end the separation of families at the border?

Booray said:

---

According to POTUS and most posters on here, he is just following a Democrat passed law. To fix it we need to "change the law." Can anyone tell me what law needs to be changed?

---

I think he's talking about Flores v. Lynch.

That is not a law. Congress can't repeal a consent decree.

Booray said:

---

That is not a law. Congress can't repeal a consent decree.

---

It's not a statute, but it is the law. Congress can override it or do anything else they want to do, as long as it's constitutional.

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

2. What is the number of immigrants/asylum seekers in this country who have disappeared and failed to appear at required hearings after they have been "caught and released?" What percentage is that of the total population that has been caught and released?

4. As I understand it if an asylum seeking family presents at a port of entry (there are supposedly 48 on the southern border), they are "caught and released" without being separated. If the same family presents themselves to a regular border patrol station, they are detained and separated. Why the difference?

---

It's about 40 percent, according to a pro bono group that works with immigrants.

According to Sessions, the families who are separated are the ones who cross illegally.

---

40% is way too high. I had read that the system was having some success with modernized tracking systems; I don't know if that is true or if that number reflects the improvement. I also wonder about chipping the immigrant/asylum seeker as a condition of release. And I am pretty sure that if we cut the wait times, the attendance would improve. But if we can't reduce that number, I would agree that "catch and release" needs to be modified.

As to Sessions, he knows that those who present at ports of entry are not crossing illegally. From what I have read, however, we have closed many ports of entry and those that are open have wait times of days. Presenting yourself to border patrol outside a port of entry with the intention of seeking asylum is not functionally different. It is well within his discretion to treat the subset of voluntary presentments the same wherever they present.

At the end of the day I guess my point is that the fact of increasing Central American migration does not absolve the richest nation on the face of the earth of its obligation to treat children humanely. At least some in the administration appear to relish the fact that they are not doing so; others seem just not to care.

---

Apparently the ones who have legal counsel almost always appear. Why so many are unrepresented I don't know, but it may have to do with the sheer increase in numbers recently.

The children are separated from their parents, but so is every other child whose parents are incarcerated. They're held for no more than 20 days, during which they receive food, shelter, and medicine. After that they're placed with relatives or foster families. It is heartbreaking, but I'm not sure it qualifies as inhumane.

Malbec said:

---

Booray said:

---

...The first thing I would like to hear from the Administration and the Democrats is what are we trying to do to help the governments of the "source countries" rein in that violence....

---

Let's just invade all the Central American countries, make them part of America, then nobody will have to leave to come to America because they will already be in America. Then refugees from South America wouldn't have as far to go, and we would have an extra border with Mexico so the drug cartels would be able to double up. Everybody's happy!

---

nahhh man, the canal would be the border. Natural "wall"

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

2. What is the number of immigrants/asylum seekers in this country who have disappeared and failed to appear at required hearings after they have been "caught and released?" What percentage is that of the total population that has been caught and released?

4. As I understand it if an asylum seeking family presents at a port of entry (there are supposedly 48 on the southern border), they are "caught and released" without being separated. If the same family presents themselves to a regular border patrol station, they are detained and separated. Why the difference?

---

It's about 40 percent, according to a pro bono group that works with immigrants.

According to Sessions, the families who are separated are the ones who cross illegally.

---

40% is way too high. I had read that the system was having some success with modernized tracking systems; I don't know if that is true or if that number reflects the improvement. I also wonder about chipping the immigrant/asylum seeker as a condition of release. And I am pretty sure that if we cut the wait times, the attendance would improve. But if we can't reduce that number, I would agree that "catch and release" needs to be modified.

As to Sessions, he knows that those who present at ports of entry are not crossing illegally. From what I have read, however, we have closed many ports of entry and those that are open have wait times of days. Presenting yourself to border patrol outside a port of entry with the intention of seeking asylum is not functionally different. It is well within his discretion to treat the subset of voluntary presentments the same wherever they present.

At the end of the day I guess my point is that the fact of increasing Central American migration does not absolve the richest nation on the face of the earth of its obligation to treat children humanely. At least some in the administration appear to relish the fact that they are not doing so; others seem just not to care.

---

Apparently the ones who have legal counsel almost always appear. Why so many are unrepresented I don't know, but it may have to do with the sheer increase in numbers recently.

The children are separated from their parents, but so is every other child whose parents are incarcerated. They're held for no more than 20 days, during which they receive food, shelter, and medicine. After that they're placed with relatives or foster families. It is heartbreaking, but I'm not sure it qualifies as inhumane.

---

These must be the talking points that have been disseminated because I've seen several variations of it on Facebook today alone. I'm honestly surprised to see so much willing defense for breaking up families over the horrifying and terrible misdemeanor crime of coming to America in search of opportunity, but I guess Trump corrupts. I also dont know where that 20day timeframe comes from, there have been reports of kids not seeing their parents for up to a year.