Lol, you like saying that. No one disputes the murder rate data you bring. Your problem is not in the data. Your problem is that you have trouble reasoning from the data to a rational analysis of what it means for us and what we should do about it.
Great news! So clearly not a national emergency and no need to build an expensive, inefficient, and unpopular vanity wall.
So since the U.S. has a high carbon footprint, why do people want to flood our country, and other places with high carbon footprints, with third-world migrants? This is counter intuitive to solving climate change. Just from a green perspective, stopping illegal immigrants from coming to the U.S. is imperative. Don't some of the people on here care about the world we leave our children?
Nice attempt, but it's not accurate. After Trump declares an emergency at the border and authorizes the building of the barriers, congress can overrule it with a vote in both bodies if they see fit.....but we both know they won't, and we both know Trump has the authority to do it. Now sure there will be a legal challenge, and it'll likely succeed in some liberal lower court but Trump wins that case as it gets to the higher courts.
Would you prefer the terms "asinine" and "disingenuous"? Arguing carbon footprint as a justification for trump's vanity wall... so choose how I describe your post. Its just as laughable, any way you choose.
When you call it "Trump's vanity wall" you make yourself sound really really stupid. Essentially any time you say that, nothing else you say matters because you've killed any credibility your statement might have had. Now I know you are just a bot intended to push DNC propaganda, but the people who program you need to do a better job.
can't vouch for cbs6 in Albany https://cbs6albany.com/news/nation-world/former-obama-border-chief-says-its-simple-the-wall-works
maybe not so laughable https://cis.org/Environmental-Argument-Reducing-Immigration-United-States "A growing population increases America’s large environmental footprint beyond our borders and our disproportionate role in stressing global environmental systems. Consider global warming. Nothing mortifies American environmentalists more than our country’s failure to show leadership in dealing with this, the most important environmental challenge facing the world in the 21st century. As the world’s largest economy and historically largest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States has a moral obligation to lead the world in meeting this challenge. A good start would be striving to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels (the Kyoto protocol, rejected by the United States, calls for an initial reduction of 5 percent below 1990 levels). Meeting even this modest objective will prove difficult, however, if our population continues to grow. . . . "We propose, then, that the United States reduce immigration by taking the following measures: Cut legal immigration from one million to 200,000 per year (the level allowed during the middle of the last century). Reduce illegal immigration by strictly enforcing sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers (it is fruitless to try to lower legal immigration levels while ignoring or condoning illegal immigration). Rework trade agreements, and increase and better target development aid, to help people live better lives in their own countries. "Such a policy would allow some of the benefits of immigration to continue (providing asylum for political refugees, allowing small influxes of workers with special skills, etc.) while helping the United States move toward population stabilization. Because our current TFR of 2.05 is right around “replacement rate” (2.1) and because reducing immigration would likely help drive our TFR even lower, such stabilization is no wild eco-fantasy. The United States is nearly there, if we are willing to limit immigration (this also holds true for other developed nations, whose TFRs tend to be even lower than the United States’). "This proposal is solidly within the mainstream of the best thinking on sustainability. As the President’s Council on Sustainable Development put it in 1996: “Managing population growth, resources, and wastes is essential to ensuring that the total impact of these factors is within the bounds of sustainability. Stabilizing the population without changing consumption and waste production patterns would not be enough, but it would make an immensely challenging task more manageable. In the United States, each is necessary; neither alone is sufficient.” One of the Council’s 10 major suggestions for creating a sustainable society was: “Move toward stabilization of U.S. population.”18 "Many readers will instinctively recoil from our proposal. But we contend that paeans to sustainability, or talk of nonhuman beings having an intrinsic value that we need to respect, or reminders that God calls us to be good stewards of His creation, or earnest expressions of our strong environmental feelings, are all mere cant, when coupled with a blithe acceptance of the doubling or tripling of America’s human population. In the second half of this paper, we address some of the main objections that might be raised against our proposal. But at a minimum, we insist that readers unwilling to reduce immigration into the United States own the demographic and environmental implications of their positions."
Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has a very questionable history. It was founded by John Tanton (along with FAIR and Numbers USA), all anti-immigration organizations. Tanton also is considered a white supremacist. https://www.politifact.com/florida/...-immigration-studies-hate-group-southern-pov/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studies-cis/ https://www.cato.org/blog/center-immigration-studies-exaggerates-immigrant-welfare-use
and the lead author is Phil Cafaro who is a professor at Colorado State, I believe Staples was one of his students. what's your point? do you just simply attempt to discredit a source and believe your job is done?
Please. The high homicide rate in Mexico is a result of a drug market. How many times must I go down this road with you? What do you think they are killing each other over? Broccoli? Like I said, the illiberals here cannot be convinced. They live in a post-data world. What if I were to tell you that drug overdose death rates in Ohio and surrounding states were going down? You guys would not believe me and would continue to live a life of ignorance.
