Guno צְבִי (01-12-2019)
He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine
Guno צְבִי (01-12-2019)
The wall would stretch across a vast expanse of desert between ports of entry. Yet, most security threats are at ports of entry rather than between.
About one-fifth of the number of gang members apprehended were at ports of entry (a significantly larger number than the six members who were apprehended between).
The same goes for suspected terrorists. The State Department estimated that exactly zero terrorists entered the United States from the U.S.-Mexico border. In fact, counties along the southern border are among the safest in the United States.
The Department of Homeland security stated, “Most of these individuals are trying to enter the U.S. by air,” meaning the wall would be largely ineffective in preventing a terrorist threat.
He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine
Guno צְבִי (01-12-2019), rjhenn (01-12-2019)
There has been a sizable increase in cross-border trafficking of drugs such as heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine in recent years.
According to Customs and Border Protection data, these drugs are almost entirely trafficked at the land ports of entry and at the 47 official border crossings.
Despite the increase in drug trafficking, reports have shown that shifting the priority to zero-tolerance immigration enforcement diverted resources from pursuing more serious crimes like drug and human trafficking.
Focusing attention on drug trafficking at ports of entry would likely result in an increase in drug seizures, which would make America safer by keeping out some of the most dangerous substances affecting our population today.
3. Investing in technology and personnel
A wall’s function is to create a physical barrier to prevent people from crossing. However, a wall cannot perform the myriad functions necessary to apprehend crossers, screen migrants, detect illicit behavior, etc. Department of Homeland Security staffers, border patrol agents and increased technology however, can.
Technology, including cameras, fixed towers and aerial and underground sensors, can help combat cartels that are using highly sophisticated technology to cross the border.
Expanding agencies like the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Counterterrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit prevents terrorists and other criminals from exploiting the nation's immigration system through fraud.
Investing in the Biometric Entry-Exit System at all ports of entry helps screen those who enter into the United States efficiently and effectively. The need for a 21st-century approach to border security is something both Republicans and Democrats have called for, aiming to find new solutions to emerging problems.
Placing the appropriate technology in the right places and training and building the skill set of personnel in key agencies makes America safer.
The shutdown over the border wall needs to end. Many people in charge of keeping America safe are currently working without pay.
Transportation Security Administration agents are calling in sick, and the growing strain on those who work for the Border Patrol, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Secret Service could negatively impact the morale and quality of work of these vital agencies.
Agreeing on a bipartisan deal to end the shutdown and paying the people who are in charge of our nation’s security makes America safer. Let us have a discussion in Congress about the border, with people who work and live at the border, to come up with bipartisan, contemporary, cost-effective solutions to improve our border security.
Rachel Schmidtke is the program associate at the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, where she conducts research on the policies and trends of migration and U.S.-Mexico relations.
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigrat...outhern-border
He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine
Guno צְבִי (01-12-2019), rjhenn (01-12-2019)
Guno צְבִי (01-12-2019)
Keep changing the names. It doesn't change the meaning.
Abortion
Pro-Choice
Women's rights
Women's Health
rjhenn (01-12-2019)
rjhenn (01-12-2019)
The wall would stretch across a vast expanse of desert between ports of entry. Yet, most security threats are at ports of entry rather than between.
About one-fifth of the number of gang members apprehended were at ports of entry (a significantly larger number than the six members who were apprehended between).
The same goes for suspected terrorists. The State Department estimated that exactly zero terrorists entered the United States from the U.S.-Mexico border. In fact, counties along the southern border are among the safest in the United States.
The Department of Homeland security stated, “Most of these individuals are trying to enter the U.S. by air,” meaning the wall would be largely ineffective in preventing a terrorist threat.
https://thehill.com/opinion/immigrat...outhern-border
He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine
rjhenn (01-12-2019)
In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.
Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).
Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).
While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.
Bookmarks