Rio Grande Valley is unusually quiet as Southwest border crossings drop to lowest point in at least 17 years

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-crossings-20170410-story.html

[IAMX 3,055]

Keep up the good work.

[TBoneTX 45,299]

Two problems:

1)  Hidalgo is not "sprawling."

2)  Bored CBP agents can be worse than bored constables who hide under freeway underpasses.

[bcking 3,157]

There was a similar post last week. While I'm sure the drop apprehensions likely correlates to a drop in illegal entry attempts, it is worth pointing out that we can only make assumptions about the degree to which they correlate. Assuming a 64% reduction in apprehensions = 64% reduction in illegal migration attempts is a very big assumption. We have no linear regression to evaluate the magnitude to which they are correlated. Of course we would need a way to measure actual migration attempts in order to do that, which isn't practical. Just something to keep in mind.

 

That being said, I think this is an interesting example of when perception can make a huge impact. As the article points out, there have been very few actual changes on the ground to border reinforcement. There has been a lot of rhetoric, and a number of executive orders that haven't really done much other than make it clear that the White House supports cracking down on illegal immigration. Yet even without physical changes (and a border wall), a lot less people are wanting to come in. Likely their perception of what life will be like has changed, and it is no longer worth it for a number of reasons.

 

If it continues to decline, would people still be in favour of a 2,000 mile border wall? If Trump is able to make such a significant change without one, will it have a significant enough impact to warrant the cost? Since I was never in favour of the wall, I'm wondering what those who were in favour think.

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

There was a similar post last week. While I'm sure the drop apprehensions likely correlates to a drop in illegal entry attempts, it is worth pointing out that we can only make assumptions about the degree to which they correlate. Assuming a 64% reduction in apprehensions = 64% reduction in illegal migration attempts is a very big assumption. We have no linear regression to evaluate the magnitude to which they are correlated. Of course we would need a way to measure actual migration attempts in order to do that, which isn't practical. Just something to keep in mind.

 

That being said, I think this is an interesting example of when perception can make a huge impact. As the article points out, there have been very few actual changes on the ground to border reinforcement. There has been a lot of rhetoric, and a number of executive orders that haven't really done much other than make it clear that the White House supports cracking down on illegal immigration. Yet even without physical changes (and a border wall), a lot less people are wanting to come in. Likely their perception of what life will be like has changed, and it is no longer worth it for a number of reasons.

 

If it continues to decline, would people still be in favour of a 2,000 mile border wall? If Trump is able to make such a significant change without one, will it have a significant enough impact to warrant the cost? Since I was never in favour of the wall, I'm wondering what those who were in favour think.

 

 

No, it's clear enforcement has "normalized". That itself is a vast improvement. If Sessions and Trump defund sanctuary cities that's an even bigger bonus.

 

And where it comes to play is in the perception (as you said), but not of Americans, but of those who think they get a free ride illegally going to the US. Demoralizing their attempts to immigrate illegally is a priority as well. Don't need to do as much enforcement and deportations if one prevents the attempt altogether. 

 

Definitely a move in the right direction.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Meh they all flooded in the week of January 20th.  Isn't this the time of year that they usually drop anyhow?

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

No, it's clear enforcement has "normalized". That itself is a vast improvement. If Sessions and Trump defund sanctuary cities that's an even bigger bonus.

 

And where it comes to play is in the perception (as you said), but not of Americans, but of those who think they get a free ride illegally going to the US. Demoralizing their attempts to immigrate illegally is a priority as well. Don't need to do as much enforcement and deportations if one prevents the attempt altogether. 

 

Definitely a move in the right direction.

Ya I meant perceptions of the "potential migrants". If there are greater threats of enforcement they aren't going to risk it. Plus the people helping them migrate are also going to likely charge more because of increased risk (as the article suggests).

 

Saying "enforcement has normalized" is not very objective or specific. What has normalized exactly?

 

The issue of defunding sacntuary cities is complex and beyond the scope of this thread I imagine. There are legal issues about whether they actually can remove funding for unrelated services in states/cities as a way to "force" them to agree with federal law. It is kind of funny that it is a Republican Congress/President considering that, when they tend to focus on preserving State's rights. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional expert so that is about the limit of what I can say. 

 

Assuming you were/are a supporter of a wall, do you mind giving your opinion on my question I proposed? I am actually curious. If the ultimate goal is to cut down significant on illegal immigration, and we can do that without a wall. Do you still support a wall? The cost/benefit analysis is different if we can already make significant reductions without it. 

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

Meh they all flooded in the week of January 20th.  Isn't this the time of year that they usually drop anyhow?

The article I believe mentions it is down significantly compared to similar times in past years.

 

Though you could look at whether this year has been particularly bad weather wise. I have no idea. Of course in addition to their problems with making an assumption in order to infer something that they can't measure, there are also potential confounders.

 

In reality it is very likely that there has been a significant reduction due to the Trump administration, but the magnitude is probably somewhere between the 0% and the number they reference. Where it is though, I have no idea.

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Ya I meant perceptions of the "potential migrants". If there are greater threats of enforcement they aren't going to risk it. Plus the people helping them migrate are also going to likely charge more because of increased risk (as the article suggests).

 

Saying "enforcement has normalized" is not very objective or specific. What has normalized exactly?

 

The issue of defunding sacntuary cities is complex and beyond the scope of this thread I imagine. There are legal issues about whether they actually can remove funding for unrelated services in states/cities as a way to "force" them to agree with federal law. It is kind of funny that it is a Republican Congress/President considering that, when they tend to focus on preserving State's rights. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional expert so that is about the limit of what I can say. 

 

Assuming you were/are a supporter of a wall, do you mind giving your opinion on my question I proposed? I am actually curious. If the ultimate goal is to cut down significant on illegal immigration, and we can do that without a wall. Do you still support a wall? The cost/benefit analysis is different if we can already make significant reductions without it. 

Obama overtly welcomed illegals, even if laws passed said otherwise.. people watch the President and his policy makers and make decisions based on that. If the risk of being deported is higher, the chances are lower. Articles over the years of Obama were quite explicit at pointing out illegals would deliberately get themselves nabbed just to be jailed in a sanctuary city and released, if not delayed years in going through the deportation process if being held by the Feds instead. And if one doesn't believe illegals are aware of the laws and enforcement of them, look no further than their coming out of the woodwork to riot and protest in California over Prop 187.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

Obama overtly welcomed illegals, even if laws passed said otherwise.. people watch the President and his policy makers and make decisions based on that. If the risk of being deported is higher, the chances are lower. Articles over the years of Obama were quite explicit at pointing out illegals would deliberately get themselves nabbed just to be jailed in a sanctuary city and released, if not delayed years in going through the deportation process if being held by the Feds instead. And if one doesn't believe illegals are aware of the laws and enforcement of them, look no further than their coming out of the woodwork to riot and protest in California over Prop 187.

What you are describing though is perception. You said "enforcement was normalized". The way it is written suggests at least to me you meant a more horizontal normalization, suggest the actions of enforcement agents across the board have now "normalized".

 

What you describe above though is a more "vertical" or "top down" normalization. Obama/Trump themselves don't directly enforce the laws. I agree with you that a President publicly stating that he supports strict enforcement goes along way, but that is merely an effect of perception.

 

I was asking again what specifics about enforcement have been "normalized". What actions from ICE or other immigration departments have been "normalized" or unified. He hasn't "taken down" sanctuary cities yet. It isn't clear to me that the interactions between ICE and police in any of those cities have changed significant YET (to my knowledge). Now they may in the future, but right now I still think any change is due pretty much exclusively to perception. Unless of course you know of specific examples, I'm just stating that I don't know of any yet.

[IAMX 3,055]

33 minutes ago, bcking said:

What you are describing though is perception. You said "enforcement was normalized". The way it is written suggests at least to me you meant a more horizontal normalization, suggest the actions of enforcement agents across the board have now "normalized".

 

What you describe above though is a more "vertical" or "top down" normalization. Obama/Trump themselves don't directly enforce the laws. I agree with you that a President publicly stating that he supports strict enforcement goes along way, but that is merely an effect of perception.

 

I was asking again what specifics about enforcement have been "normalized". What actions from ICE or other immigration departments have been "normalized" or unified. He hasn't "taken down" sanctuary cities yet. It isn't clear to me that the interactions between ICE and police in any of those cities have changed significant YET (to my knowledge). Now they may in the future, but right now I still think any change is due pretty much exclusively to perception. Unless of course you know of specific examples, I'm just stating that I don't know of any yet.

Normalized enforcement: Raids, immediate deportations (part of Trump's first EO), increased border security presence, etc. If you want more specifics look for them. 

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Normalized enforcement: Raids, immediate deportations (part of Trump's first EO), increased border security presence, etc. If you want more specifics look for them. 

1. Raids - In searching it does look like those have increased. Though that wouldn't be "normalized enforcement", that would be "increased enforcement". Again when you use the word "normalize" you are either using it to reference to the perception that enforcement is normal or not, or you are using it to refer to increasing CONSISTENCY of enforcement. Increasing the number of raids immigration officers conduct isn't consistency, it is an increase in activity.

2. Immediate deportations - Couldn't find specific numbers on how many people have been "immediately deported", though I'm sure we will get them eventually (and I'm sure it has gone up). Again though I wouldn't necessarily say that is "normalizing" enforcement, as much as it is "increasing enforcement"

3. Also couldn't find data on this as well. I know there are PLANS to do so, but it hasn't even quite been 3 months yet. Getting the funding, then doing the hiring, then the training all takes time. I couldn't find data on whether there have been increases yet.

 

Ultimately I think we are arguing semantics here as none of what you listed I would consider "normalizing" enforcement. They are increasing it, and your right in looking there has been an increase in raids. Not sure about immediate deportations because I couldnt' find data. The increase in Raids likely helped add to the perception that it is no longer as safe to come here as an illegal immigrant.