SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Illegal Southwest border crossings were down 40% last month, according to just released Customs and Border Protection numbers -- a sign that President Donald Trump's hardline rhetoric and policies on immigration may be having a deterrent effect.
Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly himself announced the month-to-month numbers, statistics that CBP usually quietly posts on its website without fanfare.
According to CBP data, the 40% drop in illegal Southwest border crossings from January to February is far outside normal seasonal trends. Typically, the January to February change is actually an increase of 10% to 20%.
The drop breaks a nearly 20-year trend, as CBP data going back to 2000 shows an uptick in apprehensions every February.
The number of apprehensions and inadmissible individuals presenting at the border was 18,762 people in February, down from 31,578 in January.
It will still take months to figure out if the decrease in apprehensions is an indication of a lasting Trump effect on immigration patterns. Numbers tend to decrease seasonally in the winter and increase into the spring months.
But the sharp downtick after an uptick at the end of the Obama administration could fit the narrative that it takes tough rhetoric on immigration -- backed up by policy -- to get word-of-mouth warnings to undocumented immigrants making the harrowing journey to the border.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/border-crossings-huge-drop-trump-tough-talk/index.html
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @01:10PM (35 children)
Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages. When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.
Same thing here. The liberal president went easy on illegals. Now we have a crazy bastard running things, and this time the Mexicans are scared.
Crazy bastards do have their uses.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:43PM
Careful what you wish for, it may be granted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:07PM (4 children)
Yes, I remember the October Surprise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @11:38PM (3 children)
You forgot to include the link.
Reagan's October Surprise. [google.com]
Nixon's October Surprise. [google.com]
Both were treason.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 14 2017, @01:35AM (2 children)
You forgot to include the link.
Reagan's October Surprise.
Nixon's October Surprise.
Both were treason.
-- OriginalOwner_
Sorry _gewg, those don't rise to the level of treason. At worst they are violations of the Logan Act [wikipedia.org].
As for Nixon, he had his Watergate [wikipedia.org], and Reagan had Iran-Contra [wikipedia.org].
What's more, I'm pretty sure that the CIA was also trading arms for hashish with the Afghani rebels back in the mid 1980s, and selling it in the US.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @02:56AM (1 child)
A USAian conspiring with a foreign power to subvert the diplomatic efforts of the democratically-elected gov't of the USA fits exactly within the definition of treason.
Iran-Contra
The Executive Branch giving USA's weapons of war to a foreign power without consulting Congress is also treason.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:48AM
Au contraire, _gewg. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3 [cornell.edu]:
You might want to educate yourself a bit, _gewg. This [amazon.com] would likely be of interest.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:07PM (18 children)
The liberal president actually made good progress. The crazy actor president delayed the release so it would happen on his watch.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @02:24PM (17 children)
Yeah, I've heard that claim before. I've also heard it claimed that people in Benghazi spontaneously rioted due to some stupid video release. Sorry, I don't believe either story.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:37PM
I am not an American so I have no skin in this game. I remember Canadian political commentators discussing this during the Reagan inauguration. It was not secret.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:46PM (10 children)
Yeah, I've heard that claim before. I've also heard it claimed that people in Benghazi spontaneously rioted due to some stupid video release. Sorry, I don't believe either story.
Lol. "I only believe things that confirm what I believe."
Frankly no one gives a fuck what you believe.
Its utterly irrelevant to reality.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @03:28PM (9 children)
Well, Frank, you obviously cared enough to post a response.
All that silly crap you're trying to sell as "history" originates from just a couple of people, who were close to Carter.
Now, admit this much: Carter had 444 days - more than a year - in which to arrange for the hostages to be released. He FAILED. For more than a year PRIOR TO the "October Surprise", Carter failed to secure the release of the hostages. Reagan didn't throw a monkey wrench into Carter's negotiations 15 months before the election. The idea is absurd.
I'll also mention the fact that Carter was personally responsible for that failed "rescue" attempt. Any one of the services could have done more, and done better, than that combined services fiasco. The Army might have pulled it off. The Navy and Marines might have pulled it off. The Air Force alone could have delivered either Army or Marine troops to Tehran. But, when Carter decided to take an experimental mixture of all four services, and throw them at the mission willy-nilly, he doomed them to failure.
IMHO, the best possible troops available were Navy and Marine pilots, with Marine grunts acually performing the rescue.
I know, I know - you can't admit that a liberal screwed up. But, Carter was a bigger fuckup than either Clinton or O'bummer. Almost as big a fuckup as Bush Junior. Worse, Carter is a veteran Naval officer. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR HIS INEXCUSABLE LACK OF LEADERSHIP!!! The man served personally at Zumwalt's beck and call, running Zumie's errands. He should have learned some leadership from Zumwalt.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:39PM
> Well, Frank, you obviously cared enough to post a response.
I cared enough to post a response because your idiocy is the most interesting topic here.
Your full-throated embrace of alt-truth is the beginning and end of the story.
Its like your fragile ego is so completely tied up in your world-view and that being wrong about anything is a direct reflection on your self-worth.
Its sad and pathetic, but you are such a shit about it that I can't really bring myself to feel sorry for you.
Its like you are walking around with a "kick me!" sign taped to your back, that you deliberately put there yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:09PM (7 children)
Carter sucks!
Carter sucks!
The military rocks!
Carter sucks!
Yeah, we get it you hate carter and love military men.
What does any of that have to do with your false claim that Reagan was responsible for the hostage release?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @04:40PM (6 children)
It's patently obvious. The Ayatollah's people didn't want Reagan to nuke Tehran. Reagan may or may not have been crazy enough to do that. But, because the Iranians believed he was that crazy, they didn't want to deal with him. They GAVE the hostages away, before Reagan could take over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:27PM (5 children)
It's patently obvious.
Indeed it is, to someone who fully embraces alt-history it is clear as a bell!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @06:21PM (4 children)
*sigh*
Were you even BORN when all that shit was happening? I was reading the news every day. For 444 days - the number was incremented each day on the news, as well as in some of the newspapers. Add those days up. They amount to a longer period of time than the official presidential campaign. When the hostages were taken hostage, I hadn't even HEARD OF Ronald Reagan. If you had asked me who he was, I couldn't even have identified him as an actor since I don't do movies. If I were pressed, I may have finally identied him as the governor of Cal, but I never followed Cal politics.
Reagan had just about nothing to do with the hostage crisis. October surprise? Yeah - if you believe that crap, then you're just another conspiracy theorist. Enjoy it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:34PM (3 children)
Reagan had just about nothing to do with the hostage crisis.
How does that cake taste?
You are eating cake, right?
Because you are clearly trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Reagan intimidated the iranians into releasing the hostages and at the same time he had nothing to do with the hostages.
Keep on prattling on about how you "hadn't even heard of ronald reagan" but also know all about what was going on behind closed doors in direct contradiction of what the people who were actually behind those doors have said.
Oh, yeah Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!!!! unga bunga Benghazi!!!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @08:53PM (2 children)
Reagan intimidated the iranians into releasing the hostages and at the same time he had nothing to do with the hostages.
What makes you think that's contradictory? Let's suppose some of my buds and I are illegally racing our pick ups down a country road. A fellow conspirator radios us on the CB that a "smokey" (that's 70s movie-speak for a law enforcement vehicle) is coming to our location. We then abscond and lay low for a while. The smokey had nothing to do with our drag racing, but we aborted the drag racing in order to insure that things remained that way.
Similarly, the Iranians would have the problem that if they continued to hold these hostages into Reagan's term, then Reagan would have to do something about it. Even if they didn't buy into Runaway's description of Reagan as potentially crazy, it's still throwing in a new unknown without anything to gain from it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:55PM (1 child)
You've got it wrong. It was Jesus himself who flew down from a Star Wars satellite, shook hands with Reagan and personally rescued the hostages using the threat of flooding the Earth for 40 days and nights. Shit got real for the Iraqis and they realized they needed to pray to the West and worship Reagan. That's why us decent Christian countries have better weapons, because our scientists are devout believers in the right God and Jesus personally guides every bullet our Godly soldiers fire.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @10:11PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:28PM (3 children)
There is fairly strong evidence the video did increase the size of the attack party. Stevens may have survived if the video didn't increase the size of the crowd beyond their defenses. And the main perp admitted the video did bother him. It's thus reasonable to state the video probably played a role.
The administration's real "sin" is taking the intelligence reports too literally when in fact nobody really knew the entire cause or story, and still don't. They should have added more disclaimers to their statements. (They did add some, but not enough.) It's not like we can rip the neurons out of every member of the attack party and recreate their mind in emulation software. That technology simply doesn't exist.
Further, some suggested in private discussions that giving too many details may tip off the perps that we were on to them. Detractors say this idea was politically motivated, but again without neuron tear-outs, motivation speculation is only speculation. Guess-versus-guess. Move on.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @06:42PM
There is fairly strong evidence the video did increase the size of the attack party. Stevens may have survived if the video didn't increase the size of the crowd beyond their defenses. And the main perp admitted the video did bother him. It's thus reasonable to state the video probably played a role.
Then let's see this evidence rather than an assertion it exists somewhere.
The administration's real "sin" is taking the intelligence reports too literally when in fact nobody really knew the entire cause or story, and still don't. They should have added more disclaimers to their statements. (They did add some, but not enough.) It's not like we can rip the neurons out of every member of the attack party and recreate their mind in emulation software. That technology simply doesn't exist.
While that's a fascinating degree of rationalization, it ignores the obvious: the administration spun a tall tale to avoid criticism (and a shift of the election narrative to terrorism) for the Benghazi attack and its aftermath. It wasn't some spontaneous riot that got out of hand, but a terrorist attack that succeeded once and almost again a second time.
Then we have the matter of the lack of an official rescue. Apparently, the group responsible for rescuing the remaining members of the consulate was acting against orders. What a peculiar situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:54PM (1 child)
There is fairly strong evidence the video did increase the size of the attack party.
Do you have scientific evidence of that, and how could you objectively verify it? Can you read people's minds to discern their true intentions? This, much like opinion polls, are completely worthless because you can't objectively verify whether or not what people said is actually true. At least you can verify the results of an election to a reasonable degree, and you can measure someone's penis size if they lie about it, but how can you read someone's mind to see if they truly believe X? We do not have such technology yet, so opinion polls are bogus, and saying that someone admitting that a video bothered them is good evidence that it was a large reason why they carried out an attack is also unverifiable. There have also been shooters who blamed violent video games for their actions; you can say or blame anything, but unless you have actual evidence that their claims are true, it's ludicrous to simply accept what they say.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @10:46PM
There is fairly strong evidence the video did increase the size of the attack party.
[...] It's not like we can rip the neurons out of every member of the attack party and recreate their mind in emulation software. That technology simply doesn't exist.
An assertion of strong certainty followed by an argument from ignorance for the exact same thing. Classic cognitive dissonance. This sort of thing is why I think a fair number of people have gone beyond mere irrationality for US politics to some sort of mental illness.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday March 13 2017, @09:16PM
More specifically, Reagan's foreign policy staff, some of whom were the same people who helped Nixon win in 1968 by shutting down LBJ's attempt to negotiate an end the Vietnam War, convinced the Iranians that they'd sell weapons to them in exchange for not releasing the hostages until after the new president was inaugurated. This was a crime under the Logan Act, and the first illegal act of a whole host of illegal actions taken by the Reagan administration that became collectively known as "Iran-Contra".
This isn't my opinion, it's the opinion of the courts that looked at the matter.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:10PM (4 children)
Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages. When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.
I remember it. Apparently better than you remember it.
The hostage release was completely negotiated by Carter. [politifact.com] The Iranians just sat on last step in order to deny Carter the credit because they were pissed at him for letting the Shah come to the US.
In fact, there is a a strong argument to be made that Reagan conspired with the Iranians [nytimes.com] to delay the release to damage Carter in the election.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @02:25PM (3 children)
Yeah - keep telling yourself that. See my response to the above AC.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:39PM (2 children)
It's false because I don't want to believe it. Reagan and Trump are the daddy I wish I had.
FTFY
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @08:01PM (1 child)
This is modded up here? This petty, immature crap? Really?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:42AM
Looks like somebody doesn't understand the meaning of Touché.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:30PM
Wow. You bought off on every lie and swallowed every load they have pumped into you. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but yours is toast.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday March 13 2017, @06:49PM
Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages.
Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! Pick me! Pick me!
I remember, apparently better than you do. the "liberal" president authorized the failed Operation Eagle Claw [wikipedia.org] which, while it was a failure, was certainly pretty aggressive. After that, the Iranians did all they could to discredit Carter.
When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.
Exactly. In fact, it was 20 minutes after the inauguration of Ronald Reagan that the hostages were released. So, unless the Reagan team indulged in illegal contacts with the Iranians [wikipedia.org], the Reagan administration had exactly zero to do with the release of said hostages.
Same thing here. The liberal president went easy on illegals. Now we have a crazy bastard running things, and this time the Mexicans are scared.
Crazy bastards do have their uses.
You've once again shown your poor knowledge of history and are talking out of your ass again. You're stinking up the place, Runaway!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday March 13 2017, @06:50PM
When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.
Reagan had exactly zero involvement in releasing the hostages. The Iranians approached the Carter administration to propose a release of hostages in exchange for the U.S. unfreezing assets they needed to fight their war with Iraq. This happened long before Reagan won the election. The hostages were released coincident with Reagan's inauguration as a final middle finger to Jimmy Carter, whom the Iranian "administration" hated.
The only role that Reagan played was one of not being the current administration at the time. The Iranians didn't have the time or money to negotiate new terms with a new administration.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:57AM
> Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages. When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.
If your point was that the Iranian regime liked Reagan more than Carter, then totally. I mean, they probably didn't like either, but the one actively trying to spread democracy and Western values around the world, well, damn ... he was really a thorn in their side. Reagan? Ptth. As long as they don't threaten the US, they can torture their citizens as much as they want, stone women for being raped, it's all good. US under Reagan don't give a fuck.
So yeah, of course they wanted to release the hostages under Reagan. They despised Carter and didn't want him to get the credit for the release... even though his administration completed all the negotiations for the release, and he and his diplomats therefore deserved it.
So they delayed the release until just after Carter stepped down to spit in his face, because they knew many of our country's stupider citizens would give Reagan the credit for his release, even though that makes no sense.
As you've just proved, they were right.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:57PM
Who remembers the Iran hostage crisis? The liberal president made zero progress, trying to negotiate a release of the hostages. When that crazy actor president won the election, they fell all over themselves releasing hostages.
Same thing here.
False, Iran was holding out because they wanted to humiliate the old president by playing ball with the new president.