Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday March 13 2017, @12:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the betteridge's-law-says... dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:46PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:46PM (#478418)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @03:28PM (9 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @03:28PM (#478439) Journal

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:39PM (#478446)

      > 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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:09PM (#478471)

      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)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @04:40PM (#478489) Journal

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @05:27PM (#478522)

          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)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @06:21PM (#478547) Journal

            *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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @06:34PM (#478557)

              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)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @08:53PM (#478627) Journal

                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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @09:55PM (#478653)

                  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

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @10:11PM (#478659) Journal
                    I thought it was just that Allah clearly favors a secular constitutional democratic republic over a medieval theocratic republic. Learn something new every day.