Illegal immigration down 67 percent under Trump: Former commissioner

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/

 

 

legal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border has continued to fall under President Trump, dropping 67 percent through the end of March, the former border commissioner told Congress on Tuesday.

That’s even bigger than the drop reported for February, when the number of illegal immigrants caught — a yardstick for the overall flow — dropped by 40 percent.

“It’s actually up to 67 percent drop compared to last year,” David V. Aguilar, a former chief of the Border Patrol and former acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, told the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Customs and Border Protection did not immediately respond to a request for confirmation of the numbers Mr. Aguilar cited.

The agency has been releasing its monthly figures each month, though the March figures have not been released.

But a drop anywhere close to the 67 percent figure Mr. Aguilar cited would be stunning, and suggests the early steps ...snip

[IAMX 3,055]

Great news, although, I'd like to also see comparisons for deportations for illegals in the country already, as the border statistics cited in the post merely cover half of the equation.

Edited April 4, 2017 by SRVT

[bcking 3,157]

How does the "former" chief of Border Patrol have that information? Wouldn't you want to ask the "current" chief?

 

Not saying the numbers aren't real, and that is cool if they are. Just funny that they are interviewing a guy who doesn't actually hold the job anymore. I wouldn't look to him for the most up to date information, unless he holds some new post where he has access to it.

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

How does the "former" chief of Border Patrol have that information? Wouldn't you want to ask the "current" chief?

 

Not saying the numbers aren't real, and that is cool if they are. Just funny that they are interviewing a guy who doesn't actually hold the job anymore. I wouldn't look to him for the most up to date information, unless he holds some new post where he has access to it.

It's not classified info. Probably an FOIA request, or receiving knowledge directly from someone. 

 

Ask him yourself.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, SRVT said:

It's not classified info. Probably an FOIA request, or receiving knowledge directly from someone. 

 

Ask him yourself.

Odd request. I don't know the guy, and I never claimed to.

 

It is not unreasonable to question a source for a report, regardless of what they are reporting. As I said before I'm not saying that the numbers aren't true. I'm not trying to create an excuse, I just found it funny that they are interviewing the former head, instead of the current head, about current affairs. You could ask the former head about what happened when he was the head, but now that he is gone it seems funny to go to him.

 

If it was a FOIA then they could say that, instead of "according to this former dude". They even say they tried to confirm it with the actual department.

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Odd request. I don't know the guy, and I never claimed to.

 

It is not unreasonable to question a source for a report, regardless of what they are reporting. As I said before I'm not saying that the numbers aren't true. I'm not trying to create an excuse, I just found it funny that they are interviewing the former head, instead of the current head, about current affairs. You could ask the former head about what happened when he was the head, but now that he is gone it seems funny to go to him.

 

If it was a FOIA then they could say that, instead of "according to this former dude". They even say they tried to confirm it with the actual department.

Maybe the current head is too busy working. Maybe he just doesn't want to answer. 

 

I would tend to assume that a former head would still be in the know, given his or her contacts with their former department don't simply vanish, about what's going on. It's not unusual whatsoever. 

 

This is just putting something unnecessarily under a microscope, making it bigger than it needs to be.

Edited April 4, 2017 by SRVT

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, SRVT said:

Maybe the current head is too busy working. Maybe he just doesn't want to answer. 

 

I would tend to assume that a former head would still be in the know, given his or her contacts, about what's going on. It's not unusual whatsoever. 

 

This is just putting something unnecessarily under a microscope, making it bigger than it needs to be.

It was just a comment, I'm not making anything "big". I'm not even denying the numbers, just commenting on the source.

 

If anyone is "making it bigger than it needs to be", that is you. Chill pill buddy.

 

EDIT: The dude retired in 2013. He is been out of the job for 4 years now. If you get your "up to date" information from people who retired 4 years ago then...well...good for you I guess?

 

I'm not even questioning the news report. They are reporting what the guy said to congress. That is legit. It is actually more funny that it is CONGRESS interviewing a retiree who hasn't been working for the last 4 years and asking him about numbers from March. You'd think congress could get someone a little more relevent to stop by and brief them.

Edited April 4, 2017 by bcking

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Fully admitting here I'm lazy, coles notes on how this is determined?

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Transborderwife said:

Fully admitting here I'm lazy, coles notes on how this is determined?

Woah man. Don't make methodology a bigger issue than it needs to be. Methodology isn't really that important anyway. Just embrace the numbers.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Woah man. Don't make methodology a bigger issue than it needs to be. Methodology isn't really that important anyway. Just embrace the numbers.

Pfft if I did that I'd be even lazier

[IAMX 3,055]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

It was just a comment, I'm not making anything "big". I'm not even denying the numbers, just commenting on the source.

 

If anyone is "making it bigger than it needs to be", that is you. Chill pill buddy.

 

EDIT: The dude retired in 2013. He is been out of the job for 4 years now. If you get your "up to date" information from people who retired 4 years ago then...well...good for you I guess?

 

I'm not even questioning the news report. They are reporting what the guy said to congress. That is legit. It is actually more funny that it is CONGRESS interviewing a retiree who hasn't been working for the last 4 years and asking him about numbers from March. You'd think congress could get someone a little more relevent to stop by and brief them.

I still have contacts and learn things about prior jobs of mine in the tech and gaming industry back in California, and that was over 10 years ago. Have you ever been in the business world? You think people get to positions like this without being well known and connected? It's not like a McJob where you work with a bunch of random people, they lose their job, and "sayonara". Unless the information itself is classified it's really not that unusual for people even over lunch with prior coworkers to discuss stuff like this. 

 

All the presumptions you're making just reeks of naivety. 

 

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, SRVT said:

I still have contacts and learn things about prior jobs of mine in the tech and gaming industry back in California, and that was over 10 years ago. Have you ever been in the business world? You think people get to positions like this without being well known and connected? It's not like a McJob where you work with a bunch of random people, they lose their job, and "sayonara". Unless the information itself is classified it's really not that unusual for people even over lunch with prior coworkers to discuss stuff like this. 

 

All the presumptions you're making just reeks of naivety. 

 

I never presumed anything. As I said he very well could be right. I'm not saying their source is wrong, I'm just saying I find it funny that Congress couldnt' get an up to date source. Yes a retiree from 4 years ago may have the information, but you would think Congress could find someone a little more relevant. 

 

Transborderwife,

 

As for the methodology - They are extrapolating based on the number of illegal immigrants caught. That number is down by X% so they assume that their ability to catch them is stable, so overall immigration is down by the same percentage. We all can interpret that however we like. The confounders are quite obvious.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I never presumed anything. As I said he very well could be right. I'm not saying their source is wrong, I'm just saying I find it funny that Congress couldnt' get an up to date source. Yes a retiree from 4 years ago may have the information, but you would think Congress could find someone a little more relevant. 

 

Transborderwife,

 

As for the methodology - They are extrapolating based on the number of illegal immigrants caught. That number is down by X% so they assume that their ability to catch them is stable, so overall immigration is down by the same percentage. We all can interpret that however we like. The confounders are quite obvious.

Its called statistics. It works. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

59 minutes ago, bcking said:

How does the "former" chief of Border Patrol have that information? Wouldn't you want to ask the "current" chief?

 

Not saying the numbers aren't real, and that is cool if they are. Just funny that they are interviewing a guy who doesn't actually hold the job anymore. I wouldn't look to him for the most up to date information, unless he holds some new post where he has access to it.

i think we should just wait and see, it's really to soon to tell is illegal immigration is actually down..

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Just now, smilesammich said:

i think we should just wait and see, it's really to soon to tell is illegal immigration is actually down..

I hear an awful lot of noise about people detained, not as much though on those deported