Report: The U.S. Border is Getting Safer

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 07:53:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Despite all the fear-mongering Republicans wanting to throw more money at the southwest border, statistics show it's not needed.

The AP examines the statistics and concludes the border area may be one of the safest places in America.

The top four big cities in America with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso and Austin, according to a new FBI report. And an in-house Customs and Border Protection report shows that Border Patrol agents face far less danger than street cops in most U.S. cities.

[More....]

The Customs and Border Protection study, obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request, shows 3 percent of Border Patrol agents and officers were assaulted last year, mostly when assailants threw rocks at them. That compares with 11 percent of police officers and sheriff's deputies assaulted during the same period, usually with guns or knives.

In addition, violent attacks against agents declined in 2009 along most of the border for the first time in seven years. So far this year assaults are slightly up, but data is incomplete.

"The border is safer now than it's ever been," said U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Lloyd Easterling.

It's time to leave the border alone, and start real immigration reform. That's what Obama promised, and we should hold him to it.

< Opening Arguments in Blagojevich Trial Could Be Tuesday | The Peruvian Criminal Justice System and Prison Conditions >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Report: The U.S. Border is Getting Safer | 58 comments (58 topical)

siz thousand miles of border, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:48:50 AM EST

not counting Alaska, just Canada and Mexico.

almost two thousand with Mexico alone.

'closing' such an area doesn't seem either possible or logical.
the old East German border was about 860 miles long, and required who knows how many guards and how much money to build.

It's a ludicrous idea to fence off Canada and/or Mexico. Unrealistic. Think 'Maginot line.'

The US is not being invaded by a foreign power. Spending on a fortified border... it's beyond silly in my opinion.

It's not an idea (none / 0) (#9)
by jondee on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 01:28:33 PM EST

or a plan..it's a bumpersticker..or a tattoo, for Tea Partiers and talk radio fans.


Logical No, Possible Yes (none / 0) (#10)
by squeaky on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 02:10:19 PM EST

The Great Wall of China is 5,500.3 miles long.


But since they hate unions (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jondee on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 02:25:39 PM EST

it would probably mean they'd wind up hiring (at least some) illegals to build it..


But Jondee (none / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 07:27:27 PM EST

You are the one supporting unlimited illegal immigrants. And it is the unlimited amount of cheap labor that destroys unions.

You cannot avoid that simple fact.

But what the Left wants is not an improved living standard for our citizens, but voters to keep them in power. That is simple and plain to see.


: Again, if the fate of working men (none / 0) (#45)
by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:29:22 AM EST

and women were REALLY your concern, you would be talking about outsourcing, along with all these ongoing expressions of faux-concern over immigration. But you never do. Obviously you're primarily preoccupied, to the point of obsession, with your bogey man "the Left" deriving some sort of advantage out of all this..
Also, on what planet does intentionally doing things to lower the standard of living for working people keep ANYONE "in power" for any period of time in this country?

Been there done that in San Diego County. (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 08:56:59 PM EST

that worked out well for the Chinese... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 03:01:02 PM EST

they kept out those pesky Mongols and manchus. Oh, wait...


: You must also drive a 2000 year old (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 07:29:47 PM EST

vehicle, believe the military uses long bows and have never heard of airplanes...'
;-)
Strawman, get thee behind me.

We saw a faor mi,ber of forts (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 02:23:41 PM EST

in Rahjastan with double walls. But the rulers eventually moved to city palaces because the forts kept being overrun. Cities were walled, but not as fortified as the forts.


: Gaelic, BTW. (none / 0) (#35)
by oculus on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 08:56:12 PM EST

To be fair (none / 0) (#1)
by jbindc on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 07:58:12 AM EST

Phoenix and Austin aren't anywhere near the border. Phoenix is almost 200 miles away and Austin is 350 from Brownsville (straight down) and over 500 miles to El Paso (WNW). Yes, they are in "border states", but so are Sacramento and Amarillo - I wouldn't consider those cities to use in a comparison like this.

It's good that crime is down, but the writer of that article needs to use better data to prove her point.

Not to mention the fact (none / 0) (#2)
by nyjets on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 08:04:40 AM EST

Not to mention the fact that we need to make sure that people are not entering the country illegally.


I think that's the point (none / 0) (#3)
by jbindc on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 08:10:06 AM EST

Jeralyn said, and I agree - we need real immigration reform. No, that doesn't mean just opening the borders and letting anyone just wander in, but you gotta ask the Dr. Phil question as to our current processes and policies - "How's that working for us?" It's not.


Well, it's not (none / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:23:49 AM EST

But until we close the border and convince the public that we have it closed you are not going to get the public to agree on anything.

Fool me once.... is sage advice.


Jim (none / 0) (#5)
by jbindc on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:58:31 AM EST

Sometimes I think you take a great deal of unwarranted abuse around here from people who make some dumb comments, but this has to be one of the silliest comments from you I've read. How do you "close" a border as long as the one between Mexico and the US? And what about our northern border? Oooh! People from the Middle East come through Canada (I'm from Detroit - where we have the largest Middle Eastern population in the world outside of the Middle East) - you wanna close that off too?

Come on!


If it gets any worse (none / 0) (#7)
by Patrick on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:02:18 AM EST

Maybe... J/K!


What I want us to do is take control of our (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 02:21:19 PM EST

borders.

And if you find that "silly," so be it.

And Detroit is such a fine example.... Sure glad you brought that up.

And don't worry about Squeaky and Jondee. They've been mouthing platitudes about me for years.

;-)


"our borders" (none / 0) (#14)
by jondee on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 02:29:49 PM EST

and attack radical Muslims everywhere, staunch left wing political movements in Latin America..

It's the right wing version of a little kid wish shopping in someone's online store..


Jondee you rattle around so much I am (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 04:01:10 PM EST

reminded of a Fice dog running around the barn.

Im not sure (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by jondee on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 04:43:25 PM EST

what that means, but I keep picturing corn whiskey, inbreeding and Tea Parties..


Since you don't speak Southern (none / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 08:05:05 AM EST

and know nothing about farms, I can see why you would start thinking about your favorite subject. But wait. You do that anyway.

lol

Fice Dog, Southern spelling


Probably originally bred (none / 0) (#51)
by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 10:40:48 AM EST

to chase down immigrant-lookin' types, 'boys' who whistle at white women and secularists.


I see that reading reference works (none / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 11:55:26 AM EST

is still not part of you.

Try it sometimes. You might even learn something.


: How about a historical reference (none / 0) (#54)
by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:04:42 PM EST

which traces the history of the Republican Party's legacy of solidarity with American working men and women?
Speaking of the shortest book outside the 5 and Under children's section..

in 2010, lines drawn on (none / 0) (#16)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 03:04:29 PM EST

maps are not nearly as relevant as some would like to make them.

the border isn't important, the nation is. the nation isn't suffering from migration woes. the rhetoric doesn't meet the reality.


TL sidebar announces "whites" will (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 03:09:47 PM EST

never "catch up" in California. Let's see. Remind me. Who was here before the "whites"?


A nation that cannot define (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 03:59:24 PM EST

and defend its borders is not a nation.

No matter what some misguided souls may think.


Lets get some specifics, jimakaPPJ (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by christinep on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 04:59:34 PM EST

Using whatever definition you want, define "take control" of the borders. Specific real time and real life examples would be enlightening.
AND
In view of your statement that "A nation that cannot define and defend its borders is not a nation," please suggest some nations on the map today that would fit your definition of a "nation" sufficiently defending its borders. A bit of explanation for each example would also help.

Note: I ask these questions after reading many of your comments wherein you repeat border control time and again. It does seem fair to ask for examples of those nations that you now regard as making-the-grade, as it were.


Glad you asked (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 07:16:27 PM EST

My suggested solution to the southern border problems...and let us face it...we are talking about the southern border... is to close it followed by issuing green cards to all undocumented people already here that can pass a simple background check re criminal activity. At that point we can have a rational discussion on how many new immigrants we want and who they should be.

I think I have posted the above about plus 50 times.

As to the how.

Deploy the NG using all of the presently available technologies. We have the capability. All we need is the will power.

Everyone trying to penetrate the border should be captured and immediately deported. Everyone who slips through, when captured, should be immediately deported.

It really is just that simple.

And if you do not understand the statement, and I think you actually do understand it, "The nation that cannot define and defend its borders is not a nation," there is little I can do to help you. Perhaps you should study the immigration polices of Mexico for a more detailed view of what other countries do.


Nice try, but... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by christinep on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 08:06:09 PM EST

nowhere near the mark, jimakaPPJ. Seriously, you are not being serious. One: You cannot define "control" other than by circular definition. Frankly, I do not know--one way or the other--whether it is possible for a nation this sheer size to completely "control" its borders...short of a dictatorship. The most recent example of the dictator trying to keep its borders closed was the Soviet Union. (See, especially, Checkpoint Charlie and East/West Berlin intersect and also refer to Hungary. Other examples upon request.) Two: I still await the countries or regional entities on the map today that you define as "nations" under the definition of being able to control its borders, as you alluded to above. That is important. We may both be positioning here. But, that aside, for you to maintain the integrity of your statement, you really should be able to provide some actual names of those countries. To do so would allow all of us to "get off the pot" (or whatever) and be more clear about the basis for our discussion.

Or, is this all a game? Hmmm?


I see that you are pulling the old strawman (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:43:12 PM EST

trick.

Control obviously means keeping out the people we want kept out. I am astounded to have to make that point. I thought better of you.

And in case you can't figure it out there wouldn't be "walls" and "Checkpoint Charlies." Just a lot patrols both on the ground and in the air and enough resources to get to where they are needed in a hurry.

I mean go to Google Earth and see what kind of definition you can get just with commercial satellite imagery... Imagine what can be done with military cameras broadcast real time.

Our southern border could be zipped tight in less than three months. All it takes is will power and desire.

And One More Time. If you are incapable of understanding that a nation that cannot define and defend its borders is not a nation then you are beyond help. What you are saying is Open Borders.

Go back and see how Mexico, since you seem to favor assisting them, does it.

The Left doesn't want it closed because it sees the people flooding across as aids in changing the country. That's the bottom line.


Nope. (none / 0) (#44)
by christinep on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:35:06 PM EST

Not a straw man at all. Just asking what must be asked SINCE you made the assertion about what nations (or countries or land masses) are entitled to be called nations based on ability to define & control borders.

Guess what? You have not and cannot answer the central question: What countries would reach your designation of "nation" based upon your own definition. Nope, no strawman at all. You made the assertion. Unless you are blowing that hot air somewhere, one would expect that you could give an answer <to your own assertion.>

And, if you want to move on from this game now, go ahead. BTW, if you get your kicks from snide assertions and attempts to provoke, you need to step up your game a bit. I'd like to hear your answer about what countries you have in mind. If you don't want to say "uncle," that is certainly understood. (And, I would suggest that you change your line of attempting to go on offense; it doesn't work when you've backed yourself into a corner.)


: The statement I made (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 07:59:52 AM EST

is logical and anyone with any knowledge of history knows it is correct.
You are using the "demand demand demand answer this strawman question.... Name me a "country" for example. Once that is done you will then declare it wrong and demand that I defend the answer. The subject then becomes reframed away from illegal immigrants.
I repeat. The statement I made is logical and anyone with any knowledge of history knows it is correct.

Jim, it's a 2k mile border. (none / 0) (#34)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 08:33:27 PM EST

It's also a waste of resources.


Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:48:01 PM EST

Well, thanks for admitting and stating your argument. You think it is a waste of resources. I don't for the obvious reasons of the terrible economic impact the illegal immigrants make on the country.

And please, don't waste time telling me how they save the country by doing jobs citizens and legal workers won't do. The jobs would get done. And yes, the price of an apple or pound of grapes might go up.... But don't you want labor to be fairly paid????????


If labor being "fairly paid" (2.00 / 1) (#43)
by jondee on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:25:51 PM EST

were really the issue, you'd probably be spending as much time talking about outsourcing as you do about immigration, but somehow you never get around to it; on immigration threads or any other threads.
Now what is any thinking person supposed to make of that? We wont even get into the fact that you've been shilling tirelessly here for the party of the "haves and have mores" these last few years. Friend of the simple working man that you are..

Is a little brown-people-who-vote-Democrat phobia -- as exemplified by the last line in your post up above -- behind all this faux-concern for the working man? That'd be my guess.


You can run but you cannot hide (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 07:54:36 AM EST

And you can't prove the lie you just wrote about me.

'Fess up. You understand that labor is a commodity and your political position is destroying our unions and our citizen's ability to support themselves.

Your motto: "Get'm fired and replaced with illegals!"


You can regurgitate talking points (3.67 / 3) (#50)
by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 10:31:01 AM EST

but you cant contribute any substance or anything remotely resembling an original thought.

'Fess up: you and the rest of the Teabaggers are in circle-the-wagons, panic mode about black, "liberal secularist" Presidents and shifting demographs which bode ill for Republicans.

If you were genuinely concerned about disappearing unions and low wages, you wouldn't have been -- and continue to be -- shilling relentlessly for the party of trickle down and deregulation all these years. This SUDDEN, opportunistic faux-concern over the fate of American workers is about as convincing as that bogus "social liberalism" of yours, (which always seems to go on hold whenever someone from the religious right is under fire.)

I have been commenting here for 7 years (2.00 / 4) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 11:59:24 AM EST

yet you cannot prove any of your claims.

You lie, Jondee. You know it and I know it and others know it.

All you want to do is insult and smear. Like I said, you have developed a real Jones for me and your attention is very similar to stalking.

That's very unhealthy. Please seek medical attention.


Here Jondee (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:12:56 PM EST

This is a comment I made over two years ago. Isn't it amazing how it makes the same points. Illegal immigrants depress wages.

Making Sense in the Immigration Debate (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 09, 2006 at 07:29:52 AM EST
et al - I note with humor that the guy who wrote the letter to the editor lives in Aspen. The city so rich that the clerks and waiters and buss boys and the rest of the worker bees can't afford to live there. So they commute miles and miles, many times in god awful winter weather. Anyone wanna bet that he ever really faced "the law of supply and demand" up close and personal?
Look. Terrorist coming through. Problem. Too many illegals causing severe problems on infrastructure. Problem. Culture getting distorted. Problem.
And then this: the Law of Supply and Demand applies to labor as much as to any other thing that is bought and sold. That is to say, if one increases the supply of labor relative to demand, its price will fall. That price is your salary, friend. And mass immigration is inexorably driving it down. Well, maybe not your salary personally, if you are lucky enough to work in a sector of the economy that is sheltered, for some reason, from the effects of immigrant labor, as lawyers are by the fact that few immigrants have American law degrees. But it is the salary of your neighbors, and it is being depressed by an influx of cheap labor. There is just no way around this basic economic fact. If there is, then free-market economics is a lie.
Shut the &^()&^ borders. We can then debate on how and what we want to do.

"Borders" plural? (none / 0) (#57)
by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:21:32 PM EST

or is it just that "borders" sounds less racist and looks better on wingnut bumperstickers and signs at Teabag rallies?

I think you were being dishonest about your true motives then, and I think you're being honest about your true motives now. It's that simple.

Now, please answer this question: why would "the Left" intentionally do things to lower the standard of living for working people "as a way to keep power"?


: You're being dishonest now.. (none / 0) (#58)
by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:24:12 PM EST

Funny, was under the impression (3.00 / 2) (#55)
by jondee on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:08:59 PM EST

that you had to lie to continue breathing, the way a shark has to continue swimming forward.

Are you claiming that Im "lying" about you shilling for the Republican hard right here these last few years? Really?


good luck waiting for (none / 0) (#24)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 06:19:41 PM EST

an answer. I've read the posts, but haven't seen a plan yet, either from Jim or from anyone else claiming this need.

As far as jim's comment on defending the borders, the US hasn't been invaded. People crossing the border as they have isn't an invasion.


There aren't enough soldiers (none / 0) (#25)
by jondee on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 06:59:25 PM EST

or enough law enforcement for all the places that guy wants (other people) to fight and defend. Which was my earlier point.


Jondee rattles on (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 07:22:40 PM EST

making things up about what I want. He has little to do otherwise and outside of attacking me and agreeing loudly with the big boys on the corner he contributes little as to "solutions."

Plus, his "jones" for me is now approaching the stalking level. His desire to jump in and attack has led to multiple comments because he just can't wait. I call these "stuttering."


You've been "stalking" (1.00 / 1) (#31)
by jondee on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 07:47:09 PM EST

this site literally for years, dropping whatever the current wedge-issue-creating talking point from wingnut central is -- including a couple of recent outrageous, brazen lies that approach the level of libel -- and now you're crying because someone actually has the nerve to knock that big chip off your shoulder.

Maybe the solution is to go back to your own site, where the rule seems to be that no one is ever allowed to call you on your b.s, or express an alternative point of view, and just glory in your ability to parrot whatever Hannity and Rush are saying this week.

Stalking an (none / 0) (#38)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:32:21 PM EST

innate object?

How does that old saying go? "The hit dog always howls." Looks like I scored a direct hit on you two!


I think you mean "inanimate" object (none / 0) (#40)
by jondee on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:47:25 PM EST

but besides that, personally, I find the site rather lively a lot of the time -- unlike those Dawn of the Dead, Tea Parties you seem to think so highly of..

And yes, obviously you're a legend in your own mind (such as it is)


: Well, yes, yes I do and (none / 0) (#42)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:50:02 PM EST

thanks for pointing out my mistake.. Spell checkers work only when you pay attention...
And you know, based on the attention you pay me I must be a legend in your mind.
lol

NSDAP (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 04:03:40 PM EST

Ah, call to nationalism has such a nice ring to the right wing.

Problem is all those brown people who are also nationals, dang!


I think the border (none / 0) (#21)
by jondee on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 04:40:46 PM EST

you adhere to was created by the secession of 1860.


Bingo jeff.... (none / 0) (#49)
by kdog on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 08:59:06 AM EST

"the rhetoric doesn't match the reality".

It's pure scapegoating. "Why am I miserable?" asks Joe the Plumber...Can't be because of the guy in the mirror, can't be because of the blessed masters of the universe, must be the usual scapegoats...immigrants, "criminals", and hippies. Chain 'em all up and all my dreams will surely come true...right?


: No Kdog (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:36:11 PM EST

The problem is that the illegal immigrants give the "masters of the universe" the power to dictate wages, lower working conditions and destroy unions.
They also give the middle class farmer the power to increase profits without raising prices by lowering the cost of labor. That means everyone, kdog included, eats cheaper.
If they make enough to buy anything.
Check out what has happened in the meat packing industry... wages down and benefits gone...
None of this could have happened if we had not allowed the country to be flooded with illegal immigrants that work cheaper and in worse conditions than our fathers did.
Both my father and father-in-law were Teamsters. I can well remember the organizing and the strikes.
Yet today those trucks streaming across the border are driven by non union labor. The plumber that one of my cousins was is almost all immigrant. And I'd bet 99% illegal.

Another equally illogical argument (none / 0) (#6)
by Patrick on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 10:01:23 AM EST

Is that Texas, because of it's death penalty has two of the 4 safest cities in America. Or Red states are 75% safer than blue?

I wish the AP story had more listed data. (none / 0) (#37)
by EL seattle on Sat Jun 05, 2010 at 09:03:32 PM EST

Or footnotes or an information link or something...

The AP story cites the "Customs and Border Protection study" that they obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request, but the story doesn't say what sort of specific categories of information was included in that study. Most of the good news in the AP report seems to pertain to the safety of Border Patrol folks. This is good news, but it is actually just one sub-category of the Big Picture concept of "Safe".

Assaults on Border patrol officers are down. Hopefully border-related organized crime activity is down, too. Hopefuly property crimes and vehicle theft related to illegal trafficking is down, too. But the AP story doesn't say anything at all about that, and some of the quotes seem to point in the other direction on these valid "safety issues".

The AP story seems to spread a wide net without showing their notes, and based on the information that seems to be absent from the story, I think it's a mistake to make a statement like "It's one of the safest parts of America, and it's getting safer."

Thread closing (none / 0) (#59)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 12:26:51 PM EST

this has degenerated into a predictable fight between a few comments. I'll be cleaning it soon, for now it's closing.

Report: The U.S. Border is Getting Safer

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal