Border wall for illegal inmigration


Yeah, but it’s really more about economic demand.


What we need to do is kill the entitlement incentives. But we’re doing better than we have in decades with Trump just by enforcing already existing laws. Illegal immigration is down 70%.

Also, to those who have been talking about the Mexican Southern Border: You are correct there isn’t a wall there. It’s actually just fencing around some checkpoints. At various points the Mexican military has patrolled the area.

As far as the Vatican goes, they do have some impressive walls. If you want to argue on the technicality that the entire city isn’t walled off, okay, but it’s still not a good comparison to the US southern border.


Understanding of course that the Feds tend to ramp up and ramp down enforcement on all of their laws depending on things like budget, workload, and priorities established by the executive, I always feel that an unenforced or underenforced law should just be taken off the books. If we are going to have border laws, we should enforce them. I was however told by somebody who lives down there that Obama had started ramping up the enforcement a couple years before Trump showed up, but it was kept quiet, presumably because Obama didn’t want to ruin his image. I believe this because I happened to notice a large increase in the government open positions for border controls in the Southwest around the same time the enforcement allegedly started ramping up.


Western Europe has low birth rates below the replacement rate. Immigration rates into Western Europe have been high.


Those are two facts that prove nothing. Ever increasing efficiencies and automation can readily compensate for a low birth rate. Also many of the immigrants into Europe are a drain on services and not worker bees driving economic growth.


True that. People mindlessly parrot this without understanding that the population growth during the early modern era was sometimes in the negative. People died from disease en masse which forced them to do more automation (printing press, newer tools).


Yes he does or at least he did when I worked there…


Then he is the rare exception, and should perhaps be trying to help them get legal status as well.


Debunked by Snopes: But Briebart is always full of Misinformation and Lies. I normally fit it into the same category and some of the Anti-Catholic Websites:


He is a Christian who tries to walk the talk.


And Snopes is hardly a reliable source for drawing conclusions that logically follow from the facts.

The claim that " …Trump’s linking of Islamist terrorism to a 13 percent rise in recorded crime “in the U.K.” (or in England and Wales, for that matter) is grossly misleading…" could only be “grossly misleading” if it is proved that very little or none of that rise in recorded crime is linked to Islamist terrorism.

What Snopes has not done is actually show that it isn’t so linked, so the very best they could claim is that Trump’s claim is only POSSIBLY “grossly misleading.”

Trust Snopes to be unreliable with their conclusions.

In addition, Trump doesn’t appear to claim “most or all” of that rise is linked to Islamist terrorism. He simply uses the words “amidst the rise of Islamist terrorism,” which doesn’t actually propose a necessary link, just suggests that the rise of one has accompanied or occurred at the same time as the rise of the other.

Trump’s actual tweet:

Just out report: “United Kingdom crime rises 13% annually amid spread of Radical Islamic terror.” Not good, we must keep America safe!

How does “amid spread of” get translated to Trump attributing all or most of the rise to Islamic terror?

Again trust Snopes to debunk strawmen.

It appears that Trump is very good at using indefinite language to trigger derangement among his critics.


If I recall my world history, many advances were spawned following the plague killing off much of the working class.


Any reasonable person reading this tweet would conclude that Trump is linking the two things. Here is what the statement would look like if the two things were obviously unrelated:

Just out report: “United Kingdom crime rises 13% annually amid a rise in stray cats picked up by the Humane Society.” Not good, we must keep America safe!

If Trump wrote that people would know for sure he was off his rocker. No, I think the implied link is painfully obvious.


Oh he said they were linked alright, but he didn’t say the extent to which they were linked. That is what he, somewhat brilliantly, left to the critics to input their feelings and outrage and criticize him for what they read into his tweet.

Haven’t you figured this out yet?

Surely, by the way, you aren’t claiming there is NO link between rising crime rates in Great Britain and terrorism or between the crime rate and high rates of immigration? You aren’t seriously proposing no link, are you?


I trust Snopes more than I trust a fellow Catholic. Snopes is unbiased and does not have a religious agenda nor does it have a political agenda.

Brietbart is the epitome of Deciet, Division, Bigotry and Racism, just to mention a few…


Snopes is two leftists with no credentials.


Snopes has a excellent reputation for accuracy. You can’t buy that! Besides, Snopes gives references for the facts it uses and you can check out those facts yourself. So you don’t have to take anyone’s word for what they conclude.


Thanks for that LeafByNiggle.
I was going to reply as well, but you did a good job of it. The more I engage my fellows, the more appalled I become when the claim is made that some Protestants exhibit Invincible Ignorance.


No to the first, yes to the second. That is, the crime rate could very well be affected by immigration. It most likely is. But the crime rate is hardly affected at all by Radical Islamic Terror, which are the words Trump used. The logical error Trump wants us to make is to do exactly what you did and equate terror with immigration.


I would suppose that Trump pointing out a correlation between Islamic terror and rising crime, given the rise in both, is no more or less deplorable than someone who, say, points out the correlation between levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and AGW.

Given that most of the immigration into Britain in the last few years has been Islamic, we shouldn’t discount completely the correlation between Islamic terror and Islamic immigration.

I mean it’s not like there haven’t been many Islamic terrorist attacks with more than a few victims in Britain, and last I looked terrorism is a crime. So increased crime being caused to some degree by Islamic terrorism connected to Islamic immigration, isn’t a bigger stretch of logic than increased warming connected to increased atmospheric CO2.

Although the increased warming, UNLIKE the increased crime rate in Britain, remains to be demonstrated.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit