Originally Posted by
Canadian Visitor
You know better than to be this silly. I'm very happy to engage you in constructive conversation.
But that's just too much. Of course people who have overstayed their VISAs or entered at a non-designated entry point have broken the law, as a rule of thumb in any event. Though the offense is not necessarily criminal. [[you can break the law and not be a criminal, it can be a civil offense). But regardless of how the breach of the law is categorized you are well aware that the assertion being made was whether they were criminal in any other way. That is to say is the United States being inundated w/thieves/rapists/murders? The answer to that, is clearly NO. That was the point. Please don't be obtuse and pretend you missed that.
****
Putting aside that I've told you in specific terms, repeatedly that I opposed illegal immigration, and have discussed what means I would support to curtail it......
I want to again reiterate that that is not the point of the article.
Its not 'illegal immigration, YEAH!' The point is that its not a crisis. A concern sure, a problem I'd agree, but not a 'crisis' that overblows matters.
***
As to 50,000 per month, which is not likely to be the sustained number, nor has it been in recent years.......
That's 600,000 per year. You aspersion to Canada is a problem. The United States in 9x larger by population.
So divide that 600,000 by 9. You would get just over 66,000 per year. Newsflash, Canada already takes in more than that.
That doesn't make us better or worse, but the assertion that we somehow don't take in refugees when we take in far more than the United States in proportion to our population and economy is something you have repeatedly brushed over.
Stop!
Being respected, means being respectful. Being respectful means being thoughtful, not just ranting.
****
In point of fact, the article is asserting that these drugs are brought in in quantities that demands use of trucks or planes or boats or trains, for the most part.
There are no tractor trailers traversing the road-less desert where there is no fence or wall.
Its not happening.
That's not to suggest some individuals aren't walking some personal-use drugs across, or the like or some very small-time dealer.
Its to suggest that its impractical to move such volumes on your person or an atv or some small suv that might be able to handle off-roading and also not get caught.
This is not a defense of illegal immigration or of drug-running.
Its a statement that interdicting either is about dealing w/shipping containers, air planes, over-stayed visas, those who legally enter on a day trip and never go home, far more than it is a fence in a desert.
Its also about noting that the situation is not a crisis nor as described.
One can argue for a border wall or anything else one wishes.
But do so armed with the facts, not foaming at the mouth.
The latter is not endearing, nor does it lend itself to being persuasive.