American Politics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

mark12345, provide sources for your claims or you will be suspended / banned from this forum, depending on your infraction history. You have 24 hours.

---

I have done Dahmsta, see above.

Dahamsta - Just a thought. You can tell me to go jump in a lake if you like, but hear me out for a second if you will.

I detect a real lack of trust among the posters on this topic. No one seems to believe anything anyone says anymore. It wasn't always like this but the world is a far more acrimonious place now and I suppose the folks on here are just a cameo of that.
We are all at each other's throats (that's no one's fault but our own as we have allowed ourselves to get sucked in by the forces out there which are trying to divide us, and I would think many on here would agree with this).
Put it this way, if the topic was football or rugby game, there would be minor or even major disagreement for a brief period, but eventually people would come back to their senses.
That doesn't happen when it comes to this topic.

And when the proverbial baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, I always try to revert to logic and truth. Truth is more elusive today than it ever has been, so we just have to inject logic and healthy debate in an effort to get to the truth.
Why is this important?
Well it's important to me, and I hope everyone else, because I would like us all to get to UNITY and unity is where the future of civilisation lies.
There is a reason why the major media outlets in America, and I would suspect Ireland, England and most of the western world seem to have forgotten how to spell the word, let alone use it
Because unity of decent, clear thinking people scares them for some reason.
Logic, truth, civility, unity.
Pass it on and we'll be far better off in the long run.

Dahamsta - Osarusan posts below that he googled the figure of 80,000 and he could only find 10,000.
Notably, all the top sites which are shown for this search are CNN, Vox, USA Today, Washington Post.
I don't know where you live Dahamsta but in America those outlets are all considered to be anti-Trump and true to form, they do question the figure.

My ongoing sources are Jeff Kuhner, radio host, Chris Plant, radio host, Rush Limbaugh, radio host, Larry Elder, radio host, -- Brett Baer, Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, Greg Guttfelt, Dan Bongino and Martha McCallum Fox TV analysts. And there are quite a few others which I can give you if you really need them.
Did I record the soundbyte when it said, sometime last year, that there were 80 K gang members. No I did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

My ongoing sources are Jeff Kuhner, radio host, Chris Plant, radio host, Rush Limbaugh, radio host, Larry Elder, radio host, -- Brett Baer, Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, Greg Guttfelt, Dan Bongino and Martha McCallum

---

All you are short of is this guy

Attachment 2776

https://theweek.com/articles/758360/rise-ms13

Decent and balanced article on these animals here and the only one that brings up a reference to 80,000 MS13 members (in Central America). Restates the 10,000 number that seems more accepted. Some more interesting numbers and data in this article: https://www.680news.com/2018/04/27/a...-up-this-year/
As I said in an earlier post, even one of these thugs crossing the border and adding to the misery is one too many in my book.

Also, learned today about another similar gang called Barrio 18 With an estimated 30,000-50,000 members in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang

And there’s apparently 1.4m people in the states who are part of a total of 33,000 gangs. That’s insane!

Mark, my advice might be to retract your claim above and be more careful in the future. We all have a responsibility to be extra careful in the claims we make these days given the prevailing mood of society and the proliferation of fake news even in the mainstream media outlets. It will actually serve us well as a society.

On this site, as we can see from the above, there are two standards applied during these types of debates on this forum but it’s DaHams site so we play by his rules, authoritarian as it may seem.

I know that we can all misremember things that we hear or see (kind of the Mandela Effect) so chalk it down to that and hope that DaHamsta will be in a kind, forgiving state of mind tomorrow morning! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

https://theweek.com/articles/758360/rise-ms13

Decent and balanced article on these animals here and the only one that brings up a reference to 80,000 MS13 members (in Central America). Restates the 10,000 number that seems more accepted. Some more interesting numbers and data in this article: https://www.680news.com/2018/04/27/a...-up-this-year/
As I said in an earlier post, even one of these thugs crossing the border and adding to the misery is one too many in my book.

Also, learned today about another similar gang called Barrio 18 With an estimated 30,000-50,000 members in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang

And there’s apparently 1.4m people in the states who are part of a total of 33,000 gangs. That’s insane!

Mark, my advice might be to retract your claim above and be more careful in the future. We all have a responsibility to be extra careful in the claims we make these days given the prevailing mood of society and the proliferation of fake news even in the mainstream media outlets. It will actually serve us well as a society.

On this site, as we can see from the above, there are two standards applied during these types of debates on this forum but it’s DaHams site so we play by his rules, authoritarian as it may seem.

I know that we can all misremember things that we hear or see (kind of the Mandela Effect) so chalk it down to that and hope that DaHamsta will be in a kind, forgiving state of mind tomorrow morning! ;)

---

Point taken. I will retract the number. I have no idea where or how to find it at this point. But I will try to source this stuff better in the future.

Well, in the spirit of peace and reconciliation that has broken out, I'll accept that amidst this list were some items that breached the Goldwater Rule - both in spirit and in that I'm not a psychiatrist.

And now, back to Fox.

mark12345, the below is how you provide sources. The next time you make a claim on the current affairs forum, provide actual sources or your posts will be deleted, and you will be banned from this forum. Saying "I heard it" on X, Y or Z is absolutely not acceptable. Link sources, or don't make claims.

And, to be frank, the reason people argue with you, and don't believe a word you say, is because you sound and act like an ignorant, Trump-supporting / anti-vax / flat-earth / flouride-bad lunatic, citing and parroting "facts" without sources, some of which are borderline or actually racist, sectarian or just plain mean. I'm not saying that any of those are actually true, but that's what you sound like. Maybe you should consider that for a little while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

https://theweek.com/articles/758360/rise-ms13

Decent and balanced article on these animals here and the only one that brings up a reference to 80,000 MS13 members (in Central America). Restates the 10,000 number that seems more accepted. Some more interesting numbers and data in this article: https://www.680news.com/2018/04/27/a...-up-this-year/
As I said in an earlier post, even one of these thugs crossing the border and adding to the misery is one too many in my book.

Also, learned today about another similar gang called Barrio 18 With an estimated 30,000-50,000 members in the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang

And there’s apparently 1.4m people in the states who are part of a total of 33,000 gangs. That’s insane!

Mark, my advice might be to retract your claim above and be more careful in the future. We all have a responsibility to be extra careful in the claims we make these days given the prevailing mood of society and the proliferation of fake news even in the mainstream media outlets. It will actually serve us well as a society.

On this site, as we can see from the above, there are two standards applied during these types of debates on this forum but it’s DaHams site so we play by his rules, authoritarian as it may seem.

I know that we can all misremember things that we hear or see (kind of the Mandela Effect) so chalk it down to that and hope that DaHamsta will be in a kind, forgiving state of mind tomorrow morning! ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

https://theweek.com/articles/758360/rise-ms13

Decent and balanced article on these animals here and the only one that brings up a reference to 80,000 MS13 members (in Central America). Restates the 10,000 number that seems more accepted. Some more interesting numbers and data in this article: https://www.680news.com/2018/04/27/a...-up-this-year/
As I said in an earlier post, even one of these thugs crossing the border and adding to the misery is one too many in my book.

---

Ha! Before I read that article I did a top-of-my-head calculation of the number of MS13 members who cross the border. I based it on the figure I cited earlier of 10,000 members, with most joining in the US. Based on that, I assumed that the number of MS13 members who crossed as members to be no more than 4000, and if we assume that's over a ten year period, that would mean 400 MS13 members crossing per year. Wild estimate, I thought. And then I go to that article and it says that the number of MS13 members apprehended in 2014 (the highest in recent years) was 437!

Yes, I know the ideal would be for that figure to be zero, same for the existence of MS13 members at all. But that's not realistic and from a public policy point of view this figure hardly justifies spending $21.6B (Dept of Homeland Security Figures - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_wall#Cost_estimates, I reckon it'll be closer to $50b, if it gets that far) on a wall born out of spite and hatred, especially as there are serious doubts, to say the least, about its effectiveness: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8783721.html. And it certainly doesn't justify Trump's infamous campaign announcement speech.

Quick question to think about - what would be the effect on immigration if the US gave $25b directly to the poorest 2.5m families in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador?

Sam,

The wall is not just to prevent MS13 members, right? It’s to prevent illegal immigration and as I said above funnel all immigration and asylum through legal ports of entry. It is one part of a solution to a very real problem. To say it is borne out of spite and hatred is lazy and is just parroting media anti-Trump nonsense.

Do you or someone you know own a home? Does that home have a fence or wall? What is the purpose of the fence/wall? Is it an instrument of spite and hatred? Is it to delineate and set out the property you own? Is it intended to keep people from trespassing on and potentially - even unintentionally - destroying your property? Does your wall or fence work 100%? Mine doesn’t but it’s a deterrent and with motion cameras, gates and alarm systems it works quite well. Do you feel that you have the right to decide who can come into your home and onto your property? Would you be willing to let people from a poorer neighbourhood just come onto your property to build a home there or hide out there? Would you not have been better to just take the money that you spent on your fence or wall and given it directly to the families in the poorer neighbourhoods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Sam,

The wall is not just to prevent MS13 members, right? It’s to prevent illegal immigration and as I said above funnel all immigration and asylum through legal ports of entry. It is one part of a solution to a very real problem. To say it is borne out of spite and hatred is lazy and is just parroting media anti-Trump nonsense.

---

Well duh... one of the problems with the wall is that it won't actually manage to do that. The point is, and this goes to the heart of the issue of this thread, MS13 have been presented by Trump and right-wing media as a major threat to US security without precedent as justification for this huge expenditure. Even on this thread, you had Mark12345 presenting a figure of 80,000 MS13 members in the US. He claimed that he heard it quoted on one of his news sources, which include Fox News and Right-wing Talk Radio but couldn't remember where. And you know what? I believe him. Based on what I see of Fox News, Conservative Radio and now, more insidiously, Spectrum Media properties, it's entirely probable that Mark12345 was watching Fox or listening to Talk Radio and somebody threw out a figure of 80,000 in the context of MS13 in the US in a discussion about the Southern Border, wasn't challenged and that's the figure he brought here, which we now know, based on figures both you and I presented, to be massively, massively overstated.

And why do they do this? To rile people up. Because most people are reasonable and if you tell them that illegal border crossings have dropped by 80% since the year 2000, that the number of MS13 members crossing each year numbers in the hundreds and that 99% of people crossing the border are simply seeking a better life for their families and don't go on to commit crimes, then they don't see a need for draconian, extreme and expensive border measures, even though they support sensible border regulation and enforcement.

But there are certain groups of people who are not happy with that. No matter the cost, no matter the futility of achieving their claimed objectives, no matter the pointless misery they cause to people, out of spite and hatred (I'm not just parroting that) they throw out misleading information and figures to get otherwise semi-reasonable people riled up. Sarah Huckabee-Sanders got caught out doing this, ironically enough on Fox News, when she threw out the number of terror suspects stopped by border services in the context of The Wall, only for Chris Wallace to point out that none of these terror suspect were stopped at the Southern Border. But of course the most infamous example of this use of misleading rhetoric is the speech that kicked this whole thing off:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with [them]. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

If that's not born of spite and hatred, then I don't know what is.

I think it’s poor form to ignore two-thirds of my post and then spend half your response addressing something that I never raised.

Well intentioned or not, if you want to make a better start for yourself than you should start by following the law and not immigrating illegally. If a wall along the southern border helps with that then that’s a good thing surely?

Do you think people should follow legal processes to start a new life in a better country? Do you support people from Central America and Mexico crossing the border into the USA illegally?

I’m asking you some really simple questions in these last couple of replies. Continue to ignore them and I’ll write you off as disingenuous on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samhaydenjr

Well duh... one of the problems with the wall is that it won't actually manage to do that. The point is, and this goes to the heart of the issue of this thread, MS13 have been presented by Trump and right-wing media as a major threat to US security without precedent as justification for this huge expenditure. Even on this thread, you had Mark12345 presenting a figure of 80,000 MS13 members in the US. He claimed that he heard it quoted on one of his news sources, which include Fox News and Right-wing Talk Radio but couldn't remember where. And you know what? I believe him. Based on what I see of Fox News, Conservative Radio and now, more insidiously, Spectrum Media properties, it's entirely probable that Mark12345 was watching Fox or listening to Talk Radio and somebody threw out a figure of 80,000 in the context of MS13 in the US in a discussion about the Southern Border, wasn't challenged and that's the figure he brought here, which we now know, based on figures both you and I presented, to be massively, massively overstated.

And why do they do this? To rile people up. Because most people are reasonable and if you tell them that illegal border crossings have dropped by 80% since the year 2000, that the number of MS13 members crossing each year numbers in the hundreds and that 99% of people crossing the border are simply seeking a better life for their families and don't go on to commit crimes, then they don't see a need for draconian, extreme and expensive border measures, even though they support sensible border regulation and enforcement.

But there are certain groups of people who are not happy with that. No matter the cost, no matter the futility of achieving their claimed objectives, no matter the pointless misery they cause to people, out of spite and hatred (I'm not just parroting that) they throw out misleading information and figures to get otherwise semi-reasonable people riled up. Sarah Huckabee-Sanders got caught out doing this, ironically enough on Fox News, when she threw out the number of terror suspects stopped by border services in the context of The Wall, only for Chris Wallace to point out that none of these terror suspect were stopped at the Southern Border. But of course the most infamous example of this use of misleading rhetoric is the speech that kicked this whole thing off:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with [them]. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

If that's not born of spite and hatred, then I don't know what is.

---

Sam, listen to this woman. She is a spokesperson for the customs officers in Arizona (it's an interesting video which speaks about border guards facing massive numbers of immigrants which they just cannot handle, and being exposed to disease etc. But if you don't have the time, listen from 13.59 to the end). She says that the media and celebrities portray the border patrol as monsters, but the reality is that America goes above and beyond in the way it treats immigrants crossing the border, many of whom are hardened criminals.


https://youtu.be/IW3ma-IAe1w?t=6

Source - Judicial Watch

http://www.judicialwatch.org/latest-videos/

And......almost 30,000 murders in 2017 in Mexico, see source below.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mexico...rate-1.4497466

and it's not getting any better with 2500 plus reported in February 2019 alone. The woman in the Judicial Watch video talks about the crime rate going up in Tijuana because of the influx of migrants from the caravans. So in essence there is a real perfect storm of problems on America's southern border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samhaydenjr

Well duh... one of the problems with the wall is that it won't actually manage to do that. The point is, and this goes to the heart of the issue of this thread, MS13 have been presented by Trump and right-wing media as a major threat to US security without precedent as justification for this huge expenditure. Even on this thread, you had Mark12345 presenting a figure of 80,000 MS13 members in the US. He claimed that he heard it quoted on one of his news sources, which include Fox News and Right-wing Talk Radio but couldn't remember where. And you know what? I believe him. Based on what I see of Fox News, Conservative Radio and now, more insidiously, Spectrum Media properties, it's entirely probable that Mark12345 was watching Fox or listening to Talk Radio and somebody threw out a figure of 80,000 in the context of MS13 in the US in a discussion about the Southern Border, wasn't challenged and that's the figure he brought here, which we now know, based on figures both you and I presented, to be massively, massively overstated.

And why do they do this? To rile people up. Because most people are reasonable and if you tell them that illegal border crossings have dropped by 80% since the year 2000, that the number of MS13 members crossing each year numbers in the hundreds and that 99% of people crossing the border are simply seeking a better life for their families and don't go on to commit crimes, then they don't see a need for draconian, extreme and expensive border measures, even though they support sensible border regulation and enforcement.

But there are certain groups of people who are not happy with that. No matter the cost, no matter the futility of achieving their claimed objectives, no matter the pointless misery they cause to people, out of spite and hatred (I'm not just parroting that) they throw out misleading information and figures to get otherwise semi-reasonable people riled up. Sarah Huckabee-Sanders got caught out doing this, ironically enough on Fox News, when she threw out the number of terror suspects stopped by border services in the context of The Wall, only for Chris Wallace to point out that none of these terror suspect were stopped at the Southern Border. But of course the most infamous example of this use of misleading rhetoric is the speech that kicked this whole thing off:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with [them]. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

If that's not born of spite and hatred, then I don't know what is.

---

Sam, is it possible that we're being fed a media narrative which simply is not true?

Here's something from a journalist who went to the very source. He says that the media are misrepresenting the narrative as they portray the migrants to be mostly women and children when in point of fact they are 90 -95% young men.
Interesting

https://youtu.be/lfP2UJP0hJE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Sam, is it possible that we're being fed a media narrative which simply is not true?

---

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

---

And why should anyone believe Media Bias Fact Check?
What are the political leanings of the people who run / fund that website?

I could point you in the direction of Liberty News Now and an article entitled "Judicial Watch Instrumental In Firing Of Corrupt FBI Agent McCabe"
Not just any run of the mill website if they can wield that amount of power, one would have to say.

But then I'm sure you could come up with another website to counteract that and we could go on with this ad nauseum.

So I've learned a lot this week.
You've got to give us sources I was told. You cannot just blurb out things without giving sources or you will be banned.
So I go to the trouble of sourcing information and then I'm told it is not to be believed.
To be fair it is people's perogative to believe and not to believe what they want.

Part of the problem in this particular situation, I believe, is that I live 3000 miles away from most of the posters on this site (I think that is the case anyway?).
I turn on my TV or radio every day and am bombarded with this type of news or propaganda which it is in many cases.
I tend to forget that many of the people I am corresponding with do not have the same level of saturation coverage of this topic and therefore they need to search for it from other sources.

All I can say is that we truly live in an age where information is the biggest weapon of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Sam, listen to this woman. She is a spokesperson for the customs officers in Arizona (it's an interesting video which speaks about border guards facing massive numbers of immigrants which they just cannot handle, and being exposed to disease etc. But if you don't have the time, listen from 13.59 to the end). She says that the media and celebrities portray the border patrol as monsters, but the reality is that America goes above and beyond in the way it treats immigrants crossing the border, many of whom are hardened criminals.


https://youtu.be/IW3ma-IAe1w?t=6

Source - Judicial Watch

http://www.judicialwatch.org/latest-videos/

And......almost 30,000 murders in 2017 in Mexico, see source below.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mexico...rate-1.4497466

and it's not getting any better with 2500 plus reported in February 2019 alone. The woman in the Judicial Watch video talks about the crime rate going up in Tijuana because of the influx of migrants from the caravans. So in essence there is a real perfect storm of problems on America's southern border.

---

What does the murder rate in Mexico have to do with immigration? It's conjecture mentioning the murder rate there.

Among communities in the USA with high / low populations of immigrants there is little change in crime rates. One example of such a study is the below by the CATO Institute

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant

Quote:

---

The vast majority of research finds that immigrants do not increase local crime rates and that they are less likely to cause crime and less likely to be incarcerated than their native-born peers.3 There is less research on illegal immigrant criminality, but what research there is shows that illegal immigrants have lower incarceration rates nationwide and in the state of Texas relative to native-born Americans, although they have the same rates of re-arrest in Los Angeles County.4 Consistent with those findings, immigration enforcement programs targeting illegal immigrant criminals have no effect on local crime rates, which indicates that they are about as crime prone as other residents.5

---

No one should be saying that they should be welcoming in illegal immigrants but building a wall according to all known research will do little to help make America Safer.

Keep harping on about it but if you invested this 25 billion on say , gun legislation then you might say half the current gun deaths (approaching 40,000 per year) . If you did manage to reduce it by half then there would be 200,000 Americans alive in 10 years time that will otherwise die.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...eaths.amp.html

I agree Mark. It’s a dangerous game to play ifk. On the left side of the spectrum on that site are a load of familiar names to the posters on this site - CNN, HuffPo and others.

On JW, the site says to take the veracity of their (and by extension those left wing sources) articles on a case by case basis. The best thing we can do on here is post articles that rebut the claims or data in a particular source. It allows people to have both sides presented and then, at least we can make our own minds up. I don’t think posting a link like the above furthers any type of decent debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

No one should be saying that they should be welcoming in illegal immigrants but building a wall according to all known research will do little to help make America Safer.

---

According to those who are responsible for patrolling the border, a wall is desperately needed to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across the border. This is Carla Provost, Border Patrol Chief.

https://www.upi.com/Border-Patrol-ch...6061544661131/

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/40...ks-support-for

Could you share some of the research you are referring to?

I am glad to read that you don’t believe in illegal immigration. I was worried that no one on this site was going to actually answer that question which just seems obvious to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

According to those who are responsible for patrolling the border, a wall is desperately needed to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across the border. This is Carla Provost, Border Patrol Chief.

https://www.upi.com/Border-Patrol-ch...6061544661131/

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/40...ks-support-for

Could you share some of the research you are referring to?

I am glad to read that you don’t believe in illegal immigration. I was worried that no one on this site was going to actually answer that question which just seems obvious to me.

---

Thanks Stu. As I said before you are a clear thinker.
No coincidence I suppose that the pair of us (as far as I can see anyway, but there may be exceptions?) are closer than anyone else to the 25 hours a day / 8 days a week American newsfeeds on our TV's.
I think there are a lot of very knowledgable posters on the Current Affairs topics on this site, and I have learned quite a bit from them regarding things at home in Ireland and in England.
I just wish there was the same level of acceptance of the facts / stories we present from our side of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

What does the murder rate in Mexico have to do with immigration? It's conjecture mentioning the murder rate there.

Among communities in the USA with high / low populations of immigrants there is little change in crime rates. One example of such a study is the below by the CATO Institute

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant



No one should be saying that they should be welcoming in illegal immigrants but building a wall according to all known research will do little to help make America Safer.

Keep harping on about it but if you invested this 25 billion on say , gun legislation then you might say half the current gun deaths (approaching 40,000 per year) . If you did manage to reduce it by half then there would be 200,000 Americans alive in 10 years time that will otherwise die.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...eaths.amp.html

---

I think and hope that we all (myself included - believe me I am trying) turn over a new leaf in relation to the tone of our posts.
That said if I can make a few brief comments regarding your post here.
In response to your questions, my reasoning is as follows:

"What does the murder rate in Mexico have to do with immigration?" It has everything to do with immigration as in, if you and I were a couple of young kids in Mexico and all we saw in our town was carnage, mutiation and intimidation, would we not want to get out of town as quick as we could? I think that would be only natural to want to do that, and I would think that millions of Mexicans feel the same way? That is why we see so many trying to go north to America (and from what I am seeing now online, the people who were for so long under the thumbs of the cartel are arming themselves into militias and fighting back - that is mosty in southern Mexico). Anyway, I think you would agree that Mexico is a corrupt, lawless country at present which is run by the drug cartels? This can only translate into thousands wanting to flee north to America, and they are doing that (76.000 apprehended on the border in the month of February alone).
And you might want to balance that CATO Instiute story with a look into the city of Chicago, it's off the charts annual murder rate and the number of shootings in that city (all with illegal guns) which are linked in many cases to the flow of drugs from Mexico. I would be happy to debate you on your perception of gun control in America. Some day, but not today.

One last thing before I go. I mentioned in a post the other day that a truck crossing the southern border, a month or so ago, was stopped by the border patrol.
That truck contained enough Fentanyl to kill 60 million Americans. Does that concern you in any way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

And why should anyone believe Media Bias Fact Check?
What are the political leanings of the people who run / fund that website?

---

You said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Sam, is it possible that we're being fed a media narrative which simply is not true?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

You said

---

All true.
It is more than possible that we're being fed an untrue narrative.
Did you happen to find out anything new about Media Bias Fact Check?
Let me know so I can try to refute your findings, and we can go on like this forever.

What has happened to us? 15 - 20 years ago you took the news on your TV as gospel.
Now no one knows what to believe. Seems like we are puppets on the strings of the media.
Like Stu says, it's a slippery slope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

All true.
It is more than possible that we're being fed an untrue narrative.
Did you happen to find out anything new about Media Bias Fact Check?
Let me know so I can try to refute your findings, and we can go on like this forever.

---

I'm sure you'll refute until the cows come home. Or the immigrants go home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

What has happened to us? 15 - 20 years ago you took the news on your TV as gospel.
Now no one knows what to believe. Seems like we are puppets on the strings of the media.

---

Are we meant to be in agreement here? :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

I'm sure you'll refute until the cows come home. Or the immigrants go home.




Are we meant to be in agreement here? :-)

---

Please let us be in agreement.
I am sick of this already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Sam, is it possible that we're being fed a media narrative which simply is not true?

---

Yes, I think you are... that's why you ended up quoting a completely erroneous figure about MS13 members in the US that supported that media narrative (sorry, couldn't help myself)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Here's something from a journalist who went to the very source. He says that the media are misrepresenting the narrative as they portray the migrants to be mostly women and children when in point of fact they are 90 -95% young men.
Interesting

https://youtu.be/lfP2UJP0hJE

---

Couple of quick notes before I talk about the video itself:

1. Ami Horowitz is not a journalist. He's a documentary filmmaker, whose educational background is political science and philosophy and whose employment background is as an investment banker - he made statements about Sweden in a film that have been "described as false by fact-checkers, news organizations and criminologists as well as Swedish authorities" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami_Horowitz
2. Judicial Watch is not a news organisation - they are a conservative activist group, founded by a birther, who have a list of false claims as long as my arm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch - many thanks for sending me there - it's one step away from a Facebook conspiracy clickbait site run by Russian Hackers designed to get your credit card details with promises of dirt on Hillary Clinton

So to the video itself. I got through half of it before I figured them out - basically they take normal, reasonable behaviour of extremely poor people and spin it so that it sounds like a grand conspiracy (personally, that sort of messing with vulnerable people's lives makes me angry) :

1. The Young Men Invasion theory. The 90-95% figure is unverifiable (based on what I've just learned about the sources, utterly unreliable - but that's my personal opinion) and based on personal estimates of a couple of caravans - one of the large caravans was estimated to have 2300 children out of 7000 participants. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/w...s-history.html. I'll be generous and say that there can be variations in the demographic make-up between caravans. I will concede that it is entirely likely that there will be a higher proportion of young men (as there was among the Syrian refugees who moved across Europe in 2015), however this is not a sign of a grand invasion of criminals or terrorists.
Stop and think about it for a moment, please Mark - if you're a poor family and you have enough money to send one or two family members on a risky and arduous journey to do backbreaking work in the economic shadows of a more advanced economy, who are you going to send? That's right, the young men. So no, contrary to the narrative of the right-wing media and the President, these young men are not a whole bunch of criminals or terrorists... they are seeking to work hard to support their desperately poor families back home

2. The Outside Financing Theory- Horowitz estimated the costs of the caravan at $800000 and wondered where this money came from (ooh, is it George Soros? Or the Clinton Foundation?. Well in a caravan of 2000 people that means 400 bucks per person - they're from poor countries, but It's not unreasonable to believe that they could scrape that together.

3. The Grand Outside Plan Theory - again, poor people are capable of putting up a few Facebook posts and renting a bus

4. The "UN has organized the Caravans" Theory - just because the UNHCR and UNICEF show up to ensure the well-being of the migrants (which is their job) does not mean the UN is out to get America

OK, that was WAY more work than it should have been. Please Mark, stop believing the narrative that migrants are bad people out to get you. Work from a starting viewpoint that they are normal people, reacting as anyone would, given their desperate circumstances (as many Irish people did over centuries) - then you will start considering sensible, humane immigration policy, not the hysterical, spiteful plans being put forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

According to those who are responsible for patrolling the border, a wall is desperately needed to prevent the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs across the border. This is Carla Provost, Border Patrol Chief.

https://www.upi.com/Border-Patrol-ch...6061544661131/

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/40...ks-support-for

---

Her opinion does not stand up to any scrutiny - and there is no factual based evidence in either of those articles that support the building of a border wall.

There are however two very interesting quotes in that article:

1.

Quote:

---

the DEA has found that the cartels transport the bulk of their illicit goods over the southwest border through legal ports of entry."

---

So according to the DEA - a wall is not going to stop the 'bulk' of these illicit drugs into the USA as the majority come through the front gate anyway.

2.

Quote:

---

Durbin who also noted that fentanyl mostly comes from China through the mail.

---

Trump is always banging on about Fentanyl - but why doesn't he spend a few billion screening mail packages from China? It would be multiple times more effective - how come his war on drugs is working around an ineffective and over-expensive barrier. It makes no sense to any reasonable thinking person.

Carla Provost keeps harping on an ability to impede and deny - but its been proven to be an ineffective tool in the fight so far - upgrading technologies would be far more effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Could you share some of the research you are referring to?

---

I already did - see the CATO institute (Koch brothers funded!) link I posted previously.

Others include:

Wiley online library.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...745-9125.12175 (fee required to fully view)

Quote:

---

Despite substantial public, political, and scholarly attention to the issue of immigration and crime, we know little about the criminological consequences of undocumented immigration. As a result, fundamental questions about whether undocumented immigration increases violent crime remain unanswered. In an attempt to address this gap, we combine newly developed estimates of the unauthorized population with multiple data sources to capture the criminal, socioeconomic, and demographic context of all 50 states and Washington, DC, from 1990 to 2014 to provide the first longitudinal analysis of the macro‐level relationship between undocumented immigration and violence. The results from fixed‐effects regression models reveal that undocumented immigration does not increase violence. Rather, the relationship between undocumented immigration and violent crime is generally negative, although not significant in all specifications. Using supplemental models of victimization data and instrumental variable methods, we find little evidence that these results are due to decreased reporting or selective migration to avoid crime. We consider the theoretical and policy implications of these findings against the backdrop of the dramatic increase in immigration enforcement in recent decades.

---

American Immigration Council
https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states

Quote:

---

Between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent and the number of unauthorized immigrants more than tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million.
During the same period, FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48 percent—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41 percent, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.

---

Another CATO institute one here focusing on Prison numbers
https://www.cato.org/publications/im...countries#full

Quote:

---

CONCLUSION
Legal and illegal immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than natives. Our numbers do not represent the total number of immigrants who can be deported under current law or the complete number of convicted immigrant criminals who are in the United States, but merely those incarcerated. This report provides numbers and demographic characteristics to better inform the public policy debate over immigration and crime.

---

US Journal of Youth an Justice - focusing on young immigrants
https://link.springer.com/article/10...964-013-0045-z

Quote:

---

Collectively, this study offers the first investigation of whether immigrants, conditioned on being adjudicated, are characterized by persistent offending. Results show that first generation immigrants are less likely to be involved in serious offending and to evidence persistence in offending, and appear to be on a path toward desistance much more quickly than their peers.

---

There are literally 100's of these studies - Walter Ewing who is a senior researcher told USA today:

Quote:

---

"There's 100 years of data from all different sources that all point in the same direction," Walter Ewing, senior researcher at the American Immigration Council, told USA Today. "If you don't believe one study, there's 10 more behind it that say the same thing."

---

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/n...me/1060792002/

Her opinion does not stand up to scrutiny? She is the HEAD of the Border Patrol services!! Please. I hope you realize how close-minded that type of response makes you appear.

There is nothing in anything that you pasted up there that talks about the effectiveness of a wall which is what your post implied and what our exchange was related to (hence the articles I sourced on the need for and benefits of a wall). Your quote below:

Quote:

---

...building a wall according to all known research will do little to help make America Safer

---

I admit that it is worded in such a way that I may have misunderstood what type of research you were talking about - I clearly expected this purported research to be related to the effectiveness or not of border walls. But looking at what you have sourced it is broadly making an argument that "immigrants = good, not bad" which is not at all the substance of my position and not something I am all that interested in arguing against - because I tend to agree, notwithstanding that a handful are very bad.

My point is that the wall would prevent illegal immigration and force people (good people and bad people) to migrate legally. It would also prevent *some* (some = gross - "bulk") drugs from crossing the border. These are irrefutable facts. And, as someone who is resolutely opposed to completely open borders, I think that these outcomes are very important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Her opinion does not stand up to scrutiny? She is the HEAD of the Border Patrol services!! Please. I hope you realize how close-minded that type of response makes you appear.

---

I am entitled to my opinion - I have backed it up now continuously. If she, you, or anyone can show me fact based evidence or research that building a border wall will effect anything in the lives of Americans then please point me to it. If that makes me appear close minded then fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

There is nothing in anything that you pasted up there that talks about the effectiveness of a wall which is what your post implied and what our exchange was related to (hence the articles I sourced on the need for and benefits of a wall)

---

True to form you dismiss fact based evidence. You posted articles based on opinion. I posted fact based evidence why a wall is irrefutably pointless.

I disagree entirely with your statement in any case. - the border wall, if built, will stop illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants do not pose a threat to society in the US - I have now linked to countless sources that back that up. Spending 25B therefore is a colossal waste of money. Government resources are not infinite - they need to be spent appropriately. There is no fact based evidence out there to say that spending 25B of taxpayers money will have any effect on the problem it is purporting to solve. If you are spending that kind of money to build a wall then you need to have a very good reason to do so. Not a convoluted theory that we have to stop these 'bad hombres' or US citizens are at risk. US citizens are no more or no less at risk from 'bad hombres' than if you stop all illegal immigration - That as you say is 'an irrefutable fact' The majority of migrants entering into the US are fleeing difficult situations and are greatly in peril. The majority of US citizens want to help these people, not vilify them. (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2...as/2055361002/)This 'Wall' is not only unnecessary and irrationally expensive it is also mean spirited and borderline immoral given the engagement the US has with some of these countries (a whole other thread / discussion / argument in itself - both DEM and REP at fault)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

My point is that the wall would stop illegal immigration and force people (good people and bad people) to migrate legally.

---

Correct and as pointed out ad nauseum now at this stage - the effect on society will be nil. You will have spent all the money - for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

It would also prevent *some* (some = gross - "bulk") drugs from crossing the border. .

---

Well according to the DEA in the link you posted yesterday most of the drugs come in through legal border points - so its hard to argue that spending 25Billion on a wall funneling immigrants through the 'gate' so to speak will have any real effect on drugs being smuggled too. You would be better off spending the money on upgrading the existing border scanning infrastructure and or other border technologies and or additional personnel if society feels this is required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

I am entitled to my opinion - I have backed it up now continuously. If she, you, or anyone can show me fact based evidence or research that building a border wall will effect anything in the lives of Americans then please point me to it. If that makes me appear close minded then fine.

True to form you dismiss fact based evidence. You posted articles based on opinion. I posted fact based evidence why a wall is irrefutably pointless.

---

Now, just hold on a minute. Read again where our exchange started and the words that you have used and that I have used in response. You are, yet again, trying to foist an argument on to me that I am not making. I have not dismissed the "evidence" you shared. I have just remarked it is not the evidence that you said you were going to share. Your words were that there was research that said building border walls were ineffective. You have shown no evidence that border walls are ineffective. None. You made the claim. The onus is on you to back it up with evidence or withdraw the statement. According to the rules of this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

I disagree entirely with your statement in any case. - the border wall, if built, will stop illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants do not pose a threat to society in the US - I have now linked to countless sources that back that up. Spending 25B therefore is a colossal waste of money. Government resources are not infinite - they need to be spent appropriately. There is no fact based evidence out there to say that spending 25B of taxpayers money will have any effect on the problem it is purporting to solve. If you are spending that kind of money to build a wall then you need to have a very good reason to do so. Not a convoluted theory that we have to stop these 'bad hombres' or US citizens are at risk. US citizens are no more or no less at risk from 'bad hombres' than if you stop all illegal immigration - That as you say is 'an irrefutable fact' The majority of migrants entering into the US are fleeing difficult situations and are greatly in peril. The majority of US citizens want to help these people, not vilify them. (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2...as/2055361002/)This 'Wall' is not only unnecessary and irrationally expensive it is also mean spirited and borderline immoral given the engagement the US has with some of these countries (a whole other thread / discussion / argument in itself - both DEM and REP at fault)

---

I am sorry but this is bizarre. In the first sentence you categorize the point I am making quite well. Everything else afterwards is changing the argument to something that I have not stated. It is not about whether immigrants are criminals or not, I have already stated that. In fact I stated it in the post you quoted. (that said they do become criminals by virtue of crossing the border illegally and breaking the law which is a massive risk that they decide to take and as such should assume all responsibility for their decision and the consequences of it, if caught). Nor is it about whether they don't deserve to try and better themselves or their situation. It is about compelling people to follow the law of the land that they wish to enter into. I did.

There are many individual and community impacts to allowing illegal immigration to continue to go unchecked. Some of these impacts are safety related but in many ways the biggest negative impacts are to those that are crossing. Provided they make it over the border, their supports are minimal, their opportunities are severely limited and their health and well-being all suffers as a result and their ability to make the right decisions gets narrower and narrower. The communities that are impacted are just not set up to cope with this types of influx from any perspective - there is insufficient infrastructure - housing, health, work and so on - to help set these people up for success. Compelling these people to attempt to migrate legally addresses most of these issues. A border wall is one, effective, way to allow this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

One last thing before I go. I mentioned in a post the other day that a truck crossing the southern border, a month or so ago, was stopped by the border patrol.
That truck contained enough Fentanyl to kill 60 million Americans. Does that concern you in any way?

---

Hi Mark,

You've mentioned it a couple of times, and yep, smuggling of drugs is bad. However, the way it's been presented is, to me, a bit hysterical. "Enough to KILL 60 million Americans!!!!!", as if the main purpose of it was to deliberately murder unsuspecting people.

Fentanyl is used as a recreational drug. Even if this shipment found its way through, the vast, vast majority of it wouldn't be used in accidental overdoses.

If we look at alcohol, Molson Coors produced about 23 billion pints of beer in 2016. It takes, conveniently, about 23 pints to kill the average person due to alcohol poisoning, if taken in one go. But nobody is clutching their pearls about them producing enough raw alcohol to kill 1 BILLION AMERICANS A YEAR, because that would just be silly.

Incidentally, the places that have had the most success in reducing drug and alcohol abuse have been the ones that treat them both as a public health problem, rather than a criminal matter. If you have a million taxpayers' dollars, pounds or euros, you should be spending them on rehabilitation and prevention instead of prohibition every time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Now, just hold on a minute. Read again where our exchange started and the words that you have used and that I have used in response. You are, yet again, trying to foist an argument on to me that I am not making. I have not dismissed the "evidence" you shared. I have just remarked it is not the evidence that you said you were going to share. Your words were that there was research that said building border walls were ineffective. You have shown no evidence that border walls are ineffective. None. You made the claim. The onus is on you to back it up with evidence or withdraw the statement. According to the rules of this forum.

---

I said that a border wall would not make America safer. And I proved that conclusively. I'm not trying to foist anything on you. My points are quite clear. I know what the rules of the forum are and don't need to be reminded of them.

I am making a clear connection on that the wall is : "A barrier" and what it purports to achieve. "America free from illegal immigrants"

Why does America want to be free from illegal immigration ? Because illegal immigrants are a danger to society.

But the last sentence doesn't stand up to any scrutiny - so the question remains why you want to spend €25billion on a border wall? What will it achieve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

There are many individual and community impacts to allowing illegal immigration to continue to go unchecked.

---

Who is letting it go unchecked? Were there nearly 400,000 illegal immigrants apprehended in 2018. Down from 1.6 million in 2000 by the way. Most would say a problem reducing....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...trump-migrants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

[B]Some of these impacts are safety related .

---

Given I have conclusively proved that immigrants both legal and illegal do not pose any higher risk to society than 'natives' what are these safety related impacts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

but in many ways the biggest negative impacts are to those that are crossing. Provided they make it over the border, their supports are minimal, their opportunities are severely limited and their health and well-being all suffers as a result and their ability to make the right decisions gets narrower and narrower. The communities that are impacted are just not set up to cope with this types of influx from any perspective - there is insufficient infrastructure - housing, health, work and so on - to help set these people up for success. Compelling these people to attempt to migrate legally addresses most of these issues. A border wall is one, effective, way to allow this.

---

An overly expensive and ineffective attempt to fix an ever decreasing problem.

This is feeling very circular at this point and I have no interest in flogging this particular horse anymore. Your deflection and dodging your own claim is obvious. I repeat

Quote:

---

...building a wall according to all known research will do little to help make America Safer

---

Quote:

---

Why does America want to be free from illegal immigration ? Because illegal immigrants are a danger to society.

---

Wrong. Again. My answer to that question would be because every country has a duty to its citizens to ensure it knows who and how many individuals/families it is permitting to permanently relocate within its territory.

That it from me on this one. I don't think I can be any clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Your deflection and dodging your own claim is obvious. I repeat

---

I'm not deflecting or dodging anything - you repeating it isn't going to make it true. I'm arguing that a barrier is not going to make America safer and I've been consistent on the why I think that is. If you don't agree on the why fine but quit it with this deflection stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

My answer to that question would be because every country has a duty to its citizens to ensure it knows who and how many individuals/families it is permitting to permanently relocate within its territory.

---

I would argue yes also - but within reason. You should take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of your citizens. A $25 billion wall of steel / concrete and barbed wire is a nonsense solution in the context of the proven research which clearly shows that immigrants ( be they legal or illegal) do not pose any more of a threat then ordinary (native) citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samhaydenjr

Yes, I think you are... that's why you ended up quoting a completely erroneous figure about MS13 members in the US that supported that media narrative (sorry, couldn't help myself)



Couple of quick notes before I talk about the video itself:

1. Ami Horowitz is not a journalist. He's a documentary filmmaker, whose educational background is political science and philosophy and whose employment background is as an investment banker - he made statements about Sweden in a film that have been "described as false by fact-checkers, news organizations and criminologists as well as Swedish authorities" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami_Horowitz
2. Judicial Watch is not a news organisation - they are a conservative activist group, founded by a birther, who have a list of false claims as long as my arm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch - many thanks for sending me there - it's one step away from a Facebook conspiracy clickbait site run by Russian Hackers designed to get your credit card details with promises of dirt on Hillary Clinton

So to the video itself. I got through half of it before I figured them out - basically they take normal, reasonable behaviour of extremely poor people and spin it so that it sounds like a grand conspiracy (personally, that sort of messing with vulnerable people's lives makes me angry) :

1. The Young Men Invasion theory. The 90-95% figure is unverifiable (based on what I've just learned about the sources, utterly unreliable - but that's my personal opinion) and based on personal estimates of a couple of caravans - one of the large caravans was estimated to have 2300 children out of 7000 participants. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/w...s-history.html. I'll be generous and say that there can be variations in the demographic make-up between caravans. I will concede that it is entirely likely that there will be a higher proportion of young men (as there was among the Syrian refugees who moved across Europe in 2015), however this is not a sign of a grand invasion of criminals or terrorists.
Stop and think about it for a moment, please Mark - if you're a poor family and you have enough money to send one or two family members on a risky and arduous journey to do backbreaking work in the economic shadows of a more advanced economy, who are you going to send? That's right, the young men. So no, contrary to the narrative of the right-wing media and the President, these young men are not a whole bunch of criminals or terrorists... they are seeking to work hard to support their desperately poor families back home

2. The Outside Financing Theory- Horowitz estimated the costs of the caravan at $800000 and wondered where this money came from (ooh, is it George Soros? Or the Clinton Foundation?. Well in a caravan of 2000 people that means 400 bucks per person - they're from poor countries, but It's not unreasonable to believe that they could scrape that together.

3. The Grand Outside Plan Theory - again, poor people are capable of putting up a few Facebook posts and renting a bus

4. The "UN has organized the Caravans" Theory - just because the UNHCR and UNICEF show up to ensure the well-being of the migrants (which is their job) does not mean the UN is out to get America

OK, that was WAY more work than it should have been. Please Mark, stop believing the narrative that migrants are bad people out to get you. Work from a starting viewpoint that they are normal people, reacting as anyone would, given their desperate circumstances (as many Irish people did over centuries) - then you will start considering sensible, humane immigration policy, not the hysterical, spiteful plans being put forward.

---

Sam,

Nowhere, anywhere or at any time have I ever said that immigrants are bad people or they are out to get 'you'. You really need to retract that statement from your last paragraph.
I am in 110 per cent agreement with you that they are, the vast majority of them anyway, normal people who are in search of a better life and have done what anyone else would under the circumstances (their circumstances) just like us Irish. I have studied Irish history in America and it is quite revealing and indeed not too dissimilar at all from those currently trying to cross the southern border.

However there is one major difference which you seem to be missing. Back then, whenever Irish, or Chinese or Germans, or Mexicans or whomever you like, immigrated into this country, they assimilated into American society and thought nothing of it. Assimilation began with not breaking the rules regarding entering the country, which for starters makes you a law breaker and an illegal. The end result was an immigrant who came in, obeyed the laws, spoke the language, paid taxes and raised his family in order that his children would have a better life than he did. In America, it's a story as old as the day is long.

Oh wait a second, I hear you say - plenty of people sneaked into the country in the past or outstayed their visas. That's true they did. But they realized, or they seemed to anyway, that when they were caught, they were done for - as in deported or locked up until a deportation hearing, possibly never to return to the country.

Now it's a different story. They are sauntering across the border into santuary cities, being given drivers licensces shortly after entering the country and will soon have voting rights in many states. There are frequent protests in the streets on behalf of and involving illegal immigrants. Why have legal immigration if these folks are being rewarded for jumping the line?

And did you ever stop to think that the economy in America simply cannot handle such an influx of humanity, and that the system is at breaking point (remember 1 million illegals are projected to come in this year - did you ever stop to think about those who are waiting in line to come in legally, they will likely be impacted by this).

And, what is different now from back in the day, is there are many many hardened criminals mixed in with the normal folks (if you doubt that Sam I really cannot help you - there are hundreds of cases of Americans being killed by people who are not supposed to be in the country - try looking into the Angel Moms and Families). But because it is wrong according to some people to ask anyone entering the country to get in line and come in the legal way, all are admitted. Plus many are using kids as props to enter the country (not even family members) when families are supposed to be given preference.

In addition, since you brought up the 80K MS 13 figure. My recollection is that Donal Trump himself gave that number.
I'm sure you're thinking that that's typical of Trump - putting out facts that are not true.
Not quite, the number of 10K which you are hearing and seeing is, I am guessing, based on the 'official' number of illegal immigrants in America (which is said to be between 10 and 12 million).
The more realistic number is between 30 and 33 million and that is most probably what Donald Trump was basing his 80K number on - a projected number in other words.

And Sam, just to show you that I am capable of impartiality - something which might interest you.
Last night on Fox News (you know that's the station that no one has any faith in) there was an interesting story about Democrat candidate, Elizabeth Warren, calling for a break up of the tech giants, Google, Facebook etc. Her argument is that they have too much power. The commentator (Steve Hilton) painted an unfavorable picture of Donald Trump's tech 'minister' whom he says is in bed with big tech. He's supposed to be looking out for the common man, but is doing exactly the opposite. Kudos to Hilton and Fox for breaking this news, and the hope can only be that Mr Trump takes his advice to get rid of this 'minister' of his. Never, in a million years, thought I'd be agreeing with Elizabeth Warren, but I have to concede she is right in this instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samhaydenjr

Yes, I think you are... that's why you ended up quoting a completely erroneous figure about MS13 members in the US that supported that media narrative (sorry, couldn't help myself)



Couple of quick notes before I talk about the video itself:

1. Ami Horowitz is not a journalist. He's a documentary filmmaker, whose educational background is political science and philosophy and whose employment background is as an investment banker - he made statements about Sweden in a film that have been "described as false by fact-checkers, news organizations and criminologists as well as Swedish authorities" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami_Horowitz
2. Judicial Watch is not a news organisation - they are a conservative activist group, founded by a birther, who have a list of false claims as long as my arm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Watch - many thanks for sending me there - it's one step away from a Facebook conspiracy clickbait site run by Russian Hackers designed to get your credit card details with promises of dirt on Hillary Clinton

So to the video itself. I got through half of it before I figured them out - basically they take normal, reasonable behaviour of extremely poor people and spin it so that it sounds like a grand conspiracy (personally, that sort of messing with vulnerable people's lives makes me angry) :

1. The Young Men Invasion theory. The 90-95% figure is unverifiable (based on what I've just learned about the sources, utterly unreliable - but that's my personal opinion) and based on personal estimates of a couple of caravans - one of the large caravans was estimated to have 2300 children out of 7000 participants. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/w...s-history.html. I'll be generous and say that there can be variations in the demographic make-up between caravans. I will concede that it is entirely likely that there will be a higher proportion of young men (as there was among the Syrian refugees who moved across Europe in 2015), however this is not a sign of a grand invasion of criminals or terrorists.
Stop and think about it for a moment, please Mark - if you're a poor family and you have enough money to send one or two family members on a risky and arduous journey to do backbreaking work in the economic shadows of a more advanced economy, who are you going to send? That's right, the young men. So no, contrary to the narrative of the right-wing media and the President, these young men are not a whole bunch of criminals or terrorists... they are seeking to work hard to support their desperately poor families back home

2. The Outside Financing Theory- Horowitz estimated the costs of the caravan at $800000 and wondered where this money came from (ooh, is it George Soros? Or the Clinton Foundation?. Well in a caravan of 2000 people that means 400 bucks per person - they're from poor countries, but It's not unreasonable to believe that they could scrape that together.

3. The Grand Outside Plan Theory - again, poor people are capable of putting up a few Facebook posts and renting a bus

4. The "UN has organized the Caravans" Theory - just because the UNHCR and UNICEF show up to ensure the well-being of the migrants (which is their job) does not mean the UN is out to get America

OK, that was WAY more work than it should have been. Please Mark, stop believing the narrative that migrants are bad people out to get you. Work from a starting viewpoint that they are normal people, reacting as anyone would, given their desperate circumstances (as many Irish people did over centuries) - then you will start considering sensible, humane immigration policy, not the hysterical, spiteful plans being put forward.

---

Sam,
A quick question for you. What are your opinions on the Covington High School kids and also on Jussie Smollett?

Hi Mark,

I'm going to keep this short because this thread is starting to take up too much time:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Sam,

Nowhere, anywhere or at any time have I ever said that immigrants are bad people or they are out to get 'you'. You really need to retract that statement from your last paragraph.
I am in 110 per cent agreement with you that they are, the vast majority of them anyway, normal people who are in search of a better life and have done what anyone else would under the circumstances (their circumstances) just like us Irish. I have studied Irish history in America and it is quite revealing and indeed not too dissimilar at all from those currently trying to cross the southern border.

---

My statement about migrants coming to get you was in relation to a media narrative that I truly believe exists for the sole purpose of riling people up to advance the extreme agenda of the likes of Bannon, Miller and, yes Trump. I think you have put forward statements and made references in support of that. That said, if I've crossed the line and unfairly lumped you in with those unsympathetic to the plight of migrants, then I take that back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark12345

Sam,
A quick question for you. What are your opinions on the Covington High School kids and also on Jussie Smollett?

---

The Covington High School Kids... Hmm... that's a tricky one. They were probably unfairly demonised initially to an extent and when it came out later what those other oddballs were shouting at them most people saw that there was another side to it. And perhaps they genuinely thought Nathan Phillips was being confrontational. And they are, after all, just a bunch of teenage boys, and teenage boys can be really stupid. At the same time, as they were there to be so vocal about their "Christian" values they should learn about the Christian values of turning the other cheek, love and peaceful engagement. Basically, everybody should have just sat down and talked to each other, respectfully.

As regards the Jussie Smollett incident. If things happened as the police have described it, then the only thing the Jussie Smollett Incident tells us about society is that Jussie Smollett is an idiot.

Finally one question back at you, Mark - my question from earlier. How do you think illegal immigration levels would be affected if the USA gave $25bn to the poorest 2.5m families in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samhaydenjr

Hi Mark,

I'm going to keep this short because this thread is starting to take up too much time:)



My statement about migrants coming to get you was in relation to a media narrative that I truly believe exists for the sole purpose of riling people up to advance the extreme agenda of the likes of Bannon, Miller and, yes Trump. I think you have put forward statements and made references in support of that. That said, if I've crossed the line and unfairly lumped you in with those unsympathetic to the plight of migrants, then I take that back.



The Covington High School Kids... Hmm... that's a tricky one. They were probably unfairly demonised initially to an extent and when it came out later what those other oddballs were shouting at them most people saw that there was another side to it. And perhaps they genuinely thought Nathan Phillips was being confrontational. And they are, after all, just a bunch of teenage boys, and teenage boys can be really stupid. At the same time, as they were there to be so vocal about their "Christian" values they should learn about the Christian values of turning the other cheek, love and peaceful engagement. Basically, everybody should have just sat down and talked to each other, respectfully.

As regards the Jussie Smollett incident. If things happened as the police have described it, then the only thing the Jussie Smollett Incident tells us about society is that Jussie Smollett is an idiot.

Finally one question back at you, Mark - my question from earlier. How do you think illegal immigration levels would be affected if the USA gave $25bn to the poorest 2.5m families in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador?

---

I appreciate your righteousness and honesty in the above post Sam. Thank You.

In regard to your question about donations to those Central American countries, I am given to understand that it has been going on for some time and there are open questions as to how long it should continue in the current climate. According to USAid.gov some $118 million was given to El Salvador. Guatemala got $257 million and Honduras received $180 million. Those figures are the latest to hand (for FY 2017). My sense is that someone somewhere in Washington is taking a look at the purse strings and saying to themselves that these are just three countries out of an astromical foreign aid budget for the US. The return the United States appears to be getting for it's charity is not exactly noticable, given that there are so many from those countries assailing the border. The thinking probably is - well we gave them almost half a billion already, and look how it turned out.

Where did that money go? I'm sure there are forces at work who are ready, willing and able to 'redirect' any money donated to the three governments in question, namely the drug cartels in Mexico and their suppliers from Colombia. None of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras come across as leading lights when it comes to law and order (if there is massive corruption to their north and to their south, then it is probably safe to say that its tenticles have spread into those countries as well). All of which creates a miserable existence for its honest to God citizens who just want to make a decent living for themselves and their families.

Those are the possible reasons why the current administration in Washington is reluctant to give billions in donations to Central America. That's my opinion anyway.

mark12345 has been suspended for 1 week for continuing to post claims without linking sources, despite clear warnings.

I'm not allowing the current affairs forum to turn into an Irish stamping ground for The_Donald lunatics. Find somewhere else to post your ravings and idiocy. Or just grow up and learn how to process information.

No collusion. No obstruction. As close to a full exoneration as could reasonably have been expected.

A very good day for Trump. A horrendous day for the left and the mainstream media.

I predict the next few weeks and months will be very interesting.

LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

No collusion. No obstruction. As close to a full exoneration as could reasonably have been expected.

A very good day for Trump. A horrendous day for the left and the mainstream media.

I predict the next few weeks and months will be very interesting.

LOL.

---

A good day for democracy over there. Relief all round.

Although it's a sad state of affairs that his biggest achievement to date is being not guilty of obstruction of justice during the election campaign.

Glenn Greenwald (not everyone's cup of tea) has been pretty consistent on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

No collusion. No obstruction. As close to a full exoneration as could reasonably have been expected.

---

Says Barr, the man appointed by Trump 4 months ago. I'll wait for the report, thanks. And that's not even what he said, by the way.

SkStu, are you seriously a Trump supporter? You've been a member here for years and I've always thought of you as fairly level-headed and, well, normal. I don't mean to be rude, but your posts in here of late have changed my opinion significantly. I'm genuinely disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

No collusion. No obstruction. As close to a full exoneration as could reasonably have been expected.

A very good day for Trump. A horrendous day for the left and the mainstream media.

I predict the next few weeks and months will be very interesting.

LOL.

---

He just got re-elected.