ADVERTISEMENT

Total illegal migrants crossing border under Biden greater than population of 23 U.S. states

TigerGrowls

Woodrush
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
30,190
20,508
113
No other way to describe it than an invasion. Biden admin is committing treason imo by aiding and abetting this operation.


In first five months of 2022 alone, more than 1 million have been encountered/apprehended entering the U.S. illegally.

By The Center Square Staff
(The Center Square) – By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square contributor
Updated: June 16, 2022 - 11:33pm


President Joe Biden and his administration insist the southwest U.S. border is closed and federal immigration laws are being enforced.
But since Biden took office, more than 3 million people have been encountered/apprehended entering the U.S. illegally from over 150 countries, according to Customs and Border Patrol data. And that number doesn't include so-called "gotaways," the term used for those crossing the border illegally who evade capture.
CBP doesn't report the number of gotaways publicly, but Border Patrol agents who spoke to The Center Square said they total more than a million since Biden took office, setting the total number of border crossings at more than 4 million.
In 17 months, those entering the U.S. illegally total more than the individual populations of 23 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
Of the most populous of these 23 states, those entering illegally since Biden took office total slightly more than Oklahoma’s population of 4 million; more than Connecticut’s 3.5 million; more than Utah’s 3.3 million; more than Nevada’s 3.3. million.
In the first five months of this year alone, more than 1 million people have been encountered/apprehended entering the U.S. illegally. They total more than the individual populations of Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, the District of Columbia, Vermont and Wyoming.
The number encountered/apprehended in May 2022 was 239,416, according to CBP data, a new monthly record high. That's after a previous record high in April.
In April, CBP reported 235,478 total encounters; in March, 222,239; in February, 165,902; in January, 154,816.
The last two months alone equals roughly the size of the population of Wyoming being encountered entering the U.S. illegally.
The majority of them have been released into the U.S., including a record number of unaccompanied minors. This is in addition to another estimated more than 1 million got-aways, those who’ve made their way into the U.S. evading capture.
Those in law enforcement have expressed concerns to The Center Square that the got-aways are the ones who keep them up at night. Those evading capture, not surrendering to Border Patrol requesting asylum or making other immigration claims are more likely those with criminal records and don’t want to be caught, they say.
Images captured by private land owner’s critter cams, hidden cameras, and drone footage of mostly single military age men walking across their property at night at the southern border in Texas, regularly shared with The Center Square, show many wearing camouflage, carrying backpacks and other gear.
Law enforcement officers say they don’t know who they are, where they are now, or really how many there are in the U.S.
 
No bueno...on the bright side, there's probably a lot more fentanyl for the street poopers to O.D. with...🥳
This. While Joe and the dems are on a massive campaign to stop a few hundred deaths in a best case scenario, they ignore and facilitate the influx of drugs causing tens of thousands of deaths. Tells you exactly what their priorities are. The desire to try and score political points screaming about "assault weapons" is much more important than stopping the flow of drugs killing 10-100x more people(including kids). There is no political value in saving those lives though, so they ignore the issue and pretend it doesn't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr.Fitzwell
This. While Joe and the dems are on a massive campaign to stop a few hundred deaths in a best case scenario, they ignore and facilitate the influx of drugs causing tens of thousands of deaths. Tells you exactly what their priorities are. The desire to try and score political points screaming about "assault weapons" is much more important than stopping the flow of drugs killing 10-100x more people(including kids). There is no political value in saving those lives though, so they ignore the issue and pretend it doesn't exist.

Yes. I agree. Assault weapons ban doesn't accomplish the real goal. Let's ban semi-automatic weapons instead. :)
 
So you want to ban basic handguns and even the shotgun I use on dove hunts?

yes, yes I do. I'd prefer a gun-free society to one where there are more guns than people. The suicide rate would go way down, and so would inner-city violence. And eventually, we'd change the culture that glorifies "gunslingers" and we'd all be better off for it.
 
yes, yes I do. I'd prefer a gun-free society to one where there are more guns than people. The suicide rate would go way down, and so would inner-city violence. And eventually, we'd change the culture that glorifies "gunslingers" and we'd all be better off for it.
I’d love to be a billionaire too. The 2nd Amendment is there. You have to accept that reality. I’ll settle for making it a lot harder for crazy people to shoot up schools
 
  • Like
Reactions: 97ClemsonMac
I’d love to be a billionaire too. The 2nd Amendment is there. You have to accept that reality. I’ll settle for making it a lot harder for crazy people to shoot up schools

im not saying i think its realistic.

but i wont settle for what you will.

I might settle for it being A LOT harder to acquire a weapon, for everyone. while we slowly get existing weapons off the street through gun buy backs.
 
Last edited:
yes, yes I do. I'd prefer a gun-free society to one where there are more guns than people. The suicide rate would go way down, and so would inner-city violence. And eventually, we'd change the culture that glorifies "gunslingers" and we'd all be better off for it.
If we just banned drugs we could save many more lives. Many more overdoses than gun deaths. Also, if we got rid of drugs, it would probably decrease many gun related deaths as well.
 
If we just banned drugs we could save many more lives. Many more overdoses than gun deaths. Also, if we got rid of drugs, it would probably decrease many gun related deaths as well.
We’ve never even tried banning drugs.

But why even try if you don’t give a fvck about the lives lost?
 
Yes. I agree. Assault weapons ban doesn't accomplish the real goal. Let's ban semi-automatic weapons instead. :)

All weapons both handguns and long guns down to a BB gun can be classified as semi-automatic as semi-automatic means pull trigger one bullet fires

Automatic means you pull trigger and it fires rounds as long as you hold trigger down and ammo can be chambered

I am not sure what you mean by banning semi-automatic weapons as that means ALL guns as automatic weapons require a Treasury Permit to own now
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
If we just banned drugs we could save many more lives. Many more overdoses than gun deaths. Also, if we got rid of drugs, it would probably decrease many gun related deaths as well.

The prevailing cause of health related deaths in the US according to some of my health care friends is the consumption of highly processed foods with huge amounts of chemicals to preserve freshness and shelf life

So if we want to reduce premature deaths in the US we should ban in particular Potato chips and soft drinks

Diabetes and heart disease are linked to heavy consumption of these types of foods

So if
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
All weapons both handguns and long guns down to a BB gun can be classified as semi-automatic as semi-automatic means pull trigger one bullet fires

Automatic means you pull trigger and it fires rounds as long as you hold trigger down and ammo can be chambered

I am not sure what you mean by banning semi-automatic weapons as that means ALL guns as automatic weapons require a Treasury Permit to own now

I understood what I was typing.
 
The prevailing cause of health related deaths in the US according to some of my health care friends is the consumption of highly processed foods with huge amounts of chemicals to preserve freshness and shelf life

So if we want to reduce premature deaths in the US we should ban in particular Potato chips and soft drinks

Diabetes and heart disease are linked to heavy consumption of these types of foods

So if
This is no doubt true. Also, nobody actually needs potato chips or soft drinks, so banning those should be no problem.
 
This is no doubt true. Also, nobody actually needs potato chips or soft drinks, so banning those should be no problem.
FREEDUMB!

h6yDLx.jpg
 
Conservatives: LOOK HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE CAUGHT COMING INTO THE COUNTRY!!!

Also conservatives: THE BOARDER IS WIDE OPEN
 
  • Like
Reactions: nytigerfan
Conservatives: LOOK HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE CAUGHT COMING INTO THE COUNTRY!!!

Also conservatives: THE BOARDER IS WIDE OPEN
Liberals: WOW! WE MUST HAVE GAINED A SUPERHERO POWER TO CATCH PEOPLE ILLEGALLY ENTERING THE COUNTRY! WHAT OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLINATION COULD THERE BE????🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

So following this logic, cities with the most drug seizures probably have less drugs than cities with minimal/no drug seizures, cities with the most attempted robbery arrests have the least robberies, and cities with the most illegal gun arrests probably have the fewest illegal gun possessors.

When the number of people attempting to cross the border illegally skyrockets, then you are going to catch more of them even if you don't capture a higher percentage. You are smarter than this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
Liberals: WOW! WE MUST HAVE GAINED A SUPERHERO POWER TO CATCH PEOPLE ILLEGALLY ENTERING THE COUNTRY! WHAT OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLINATION COULD THERE BE????🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

So following this logic, cities with the most drug seizures probably have less drugs than cities with minimal/no drug seizures, cities with the most attempted robbery arrests have the least robberies, and cities with the most illegal gun arrests probably have the fewest illegal gun possessors.

When the number of people attempting to cross the border illegally skyrockets, then you are going to catch more of them even if you don't capture a higher percentage. You are smarter than this.

"the number of people crossing the border illegally" is not really accurate. It is not illegal to come to the border and request asylum. You are counting people who line up, cross a bridge, request asylum, and get processed, as illegal immigrants. But that is not the case. Our laws currently state that anyone can request asylum. Those are counted towards apprehensions. But they are not all illegal.

This is why Trump's wall was so flawed and shortsighted. All someone has to do is touch the wall and they are allowed to request asylum. Now to Trump's credit, he did try to solve this problem. He recommended that border agents shoot immigrants, including women and children, in the legs as they approached the wall. He also recommended a moat with alligators and snakes. True story.

The republicans controlled the house, senate and presidency for two full years in 2017 and 2018, and yet made no effort to change these laws. Why?

Joe Biden, on the other hand, has successfully decreased the time it takes for these asylum seekers to get in front of a judge from years to months. That is a lot less expense to the American taxpayers.

These are facts and they are indisputable.
 
"the number of people crossing the border illegally" is not really accurate. It is not illegal to come to the border and request asylum. You are counting people who line up, cross a bridge, request asylum, and get processed, as illegal immigrants. But that is not the case. Our laws currently state that anyone can request asylum. Those are counted towards apprehensions. But they are not all illegal.

This is why Trump's wall was so flawed and shortsighted. All someone has to do is touch the wall and they are allowed to request asylum. Now to Trump's credit, he did try to solve this problem. He recommended that border agents shoot immigrants, including women and children, in the legs as they approached the wall. He also recommended a moat with alligators and snakes. True story.

The republicans controlled the house, senate and presidency for two full years in 2017 and 2018, and yet made no effort to change these laws. Why?

Joe Biden, on the other hand, has successfully decreased the time it takes for these asylum seekers to get in front of a judge from years to months. That is a lot less expense to the American taxpayers.

These are facts and they are indisputable.
wait a minute. he suggested shooting children? i am told all the time about how precious babies are by the religious right. this can't be true.
 
"the number of people crossing the border illegally" is not really accurate. It is not illegal to come to the border and request asylum. You are counting people who line up, cross a bridge, request asylum, and get processed, as illegal immigrants. But that is not the case. Our laws currently state that anyone can request asylum. Those are counted towards apprehensions. But they are not all illegal.

This is why Trump's wall was so flawed and shortsighted. All someone has to do is touch the wall and they are allowed to request asylum. Now to Trump's credit, he did try to solve this problem. He recommended that border agents shoot immigrants, including women and children, in the legs as they approached the wall. He also recommended a moat with alligators and snakes. True story.

The republicans controlled the house, senate and presidency for two full years in 2017 and 2018, and yet made no effort to change these laws. Why?

Joe Biden, on the other hand, has successfully decreased the time it takes for these asylum seekers to get in front of a judge from years to months. That is a lot less expense to the American taxpayers.

These are facts and they are indisputable.
I am not counting anyone. The post was about people "caught coming into the country". If you are not doing something illegal, you are not "caught". Also, if you are "coming into the country" you would be crossing or have already crossed the border.

Second trump never recommended shooting women and children.

These are facts and they are indisputable.
 
I am not counting anyone. The post was about people "caught coming into the country". If you are not doing something illegal, you are not "caught". Also, if you are "coming into the country" you would be crossing or have already crossed the border.

Second trump never recommended shooting women and children.

These are facts and they are indisputable.
As a non-Trump supporter you spend a hell of a lot of time on this board doing just that. We know how you'll spin this though - you'll say "asking" is not recommending and shooting "them" doesn't specifically mean women and children. Eyeroll...


He also suggested shooting protestors as well. Spin that

 
I am not counting anyone. The post was about people "caught coming into the country". If you are not doing something illegal, you are not "caught". Also, if you are "coming into the country" you would be crossing or have already crossed the border.

Second trump never recommended shooting women and children.

These are facts and they are indisputable.

You are misinformed,. An immigrant can request asylum either at the border or after they cross into the US. They literally line up on bridges to wait their turn to request asylum. Those are counted as apprehensions. Those are our laws.

It has been confirmed by multiple people in homeland security that Trump did suggest shooting migrants in the legs, and actually asked them - twice - to price the moat.

facts. Indisputable.

An individual can request asylum from within the United States or at the border, whether between ports of entry or at a port of entry. The standards for a grant of asylum are rigorous under US immigration law and the process has become increasingly complex. Many legitimate refugees often have their asylum requests rejected initially in our system.
 
Last edited:
I am not counting anyone. The post was about people "caught coming into the country". If you are not doing something illegal, you are not "caught". Also, if you are "coming into the country" you would be crossing or have already crossed the border.

Second trump never recommended shooting women and children.

These are facts and they are indisputable.

You, simply, should do some reading on asylum before you claim to know "indisputable facts" about something you clearly don't understand.
 
"the number of people crossing the border illegally" is not really accurate. It is not illegal to come to the border and request asylum. You are counting people who line up, cross a bridge, request asylum, and get processed, as illegal immigrants. But that is not the case. Our laws currently state that anyone can request asylum. Those are counted towards apprehensions. But they are not all illegal.

This is why Trump's wall was so flawed and shortsighted. All someone has to do is touch the wall and they are allowed to request asylum. Now to Trump's credit, he did try to solve this problem. He recommended that border agents shoot immigrants, including women and children, in the legs as they approached the wall. He also recommended a moat with alligators and snakes. True story.

The republicans controlled the house, senate and presidency for two full years in 2017 and 2018, and yet made no effort to change these laws. Why?

Joe Biden, on the other hand, has successfully decreased the time it takes for these asylum seekers to get in front of a judge from years to months. That is a lot less expense to the American taxpayers.

These are facts and they are indisputable.
Highlighted is a lib scam to try and sell this invasion with a straight face. Literally very few of the crossers qualify for asylum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cabotiger
Remain in Mexico
Why? Numbers are proving that this is back firing on the Dems because most immigrants are fleeing socialist governments in Latin America and value family, education, fight against crime and are against abortions.
Why do you think the recent Dem defeats in southern Texas where Dems haven't been defeated in 100 yrs are shocking the liberals?
 
"the number of people crossing the border illegally" is not really accurate. It is not illegal to come to the border and request asylum. You are counting people who line up, cross a bridge, request asylum, and get processed, as illegal immigrants. But that is not the case. Our laws currently state that anyone can request asylum. Those are counted towards apprehensions. But they are not all illegal.

This is why Trump's wall was so flawed and shortsighted. All someone has to do is touch the wall and they are allowed to request asylum. Now to Trump's credit, he did try to solve this problem. He recommended that border agents shoot immigrants, including women and children, in the legs as they approached the wall. He also recommended a moat with alligators and snakes. True story.

The republicans controlled the house, senate and presidency for two full years in 2017 and 2018, and yet made no effort to change these laws. Why?

Joe Biden, on the other hand, has successfully decreased the time it takes for these asylum seekers to get in front of a judge from years to months. That is a lot less expense to the American taxpayers.

These are facts and they are indisputable.

That's the stupidest fvcking thing I've read yet. Prove it!!
If all you had to do was touch the wall then why the hell are families risking lives crossing rivers and trying to avoid authorities? This isn't Florida in the 70's with the Cuban influx where once they land on a Miami beach they can request asylum, these people are being shuttled through by cartels ( who btw are making more money by human trafficking now than drugs since Biden has been in office) in trucks, cars, across fences, etc.
You mindless libs who read articles and believe every bit of bs coming out of the media are clueless to what's really going on at the border as opposed to those of us that live in the real world and know the truth.
Trump (like him or not, I didn't care for the guy but he got things done) had an agreement in place with AMLO to stop the caravans coming into Mexico to the border however this mental midget occupying the WH now reversed all those agreements and ignored AMLO so guess what, they opened up the Mexican/Guatemala border and let them come through to the US.
Laughable that Kamala and the administration decides to solve the problem by sending millions of dollars to Latin American countries to try and solve the poverty problem. Guess what Heels Up Harris, that money will never see the public until it's been filtered through the corrupt politicians and cartels within Latin America, the people will see a fraction of that $331million if they see any at all.

Liberals will never understand that problems aren't solved by giving money to people rather than helping them get out of their situation by other means such as work and education.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
That's the stupidest fvcking thing I've read yet. Prove it!!
If all you had to do was touch the wall then why the hell are families risking lives crossing rivers and trying to avoid authorities? This isn't Florida in the 70's with the Cuban influx where once they land on a Miami beach they can request asylum, these people are being shuttled through by cartels ( who btw are making more money by human trafficking now than drugs since Biden has been in office) in trucks, cars, across fences, etc.
You mindless libs who read articles and believe every bit of bs coming out of the media are clueless to what's really going on at the border as opposed to those of us that live in the real world and know the truth.
Trump (like him or not, I didn't care for the guy but he got things done) had an agreement in place with AMLO to stop the caravans coming into Mexico to the border however this mental midget occupying the WH now reversed all those agreements and ignored AMLO so guess what, they opened up the Mexican/Guatemala border and let them come through to the US.
Laughable that Kamala and the administration decides to solve the problem by sending millions of dollars to Latin American countries to try and solve the poverty problem. Guess what Heels Up Harris, that money will never see the public until it's been filtered through the corrupt politicians and cartels within Latin America, the people will see a fraction of that $331million if they see any at all.

Liberals will never understand that problems aren't solved by giving money to people rather than helping them get out of their situation by other means such as work and education.

go read the laws. They are all codified. Don’t come back until you do.
 
Highlighted is a lib scam to try and sell this invasion with a straight face. Literally very few of the crossers qualify for asylum.
You are correct. Only 35% qualify for asylum. The rest are sent back across the border within a few months (not years like it was under Trump).

you just destroyed your own “open borders” argument without realizing it.
 
You, simply, should do some reading on asylum before you claim to know "indisputable facts" about something you clearly don't understand.
I don't need to know asylum laws to know the English language. All I did was quote you. Unless you did not mean what you said, my post is accurate. What do you disagree with?
 
You are correct. Only 35% qualify for asylum. The rest are sent back across the border within a few months (not years like it was under Trump).

you just destroyed your own “open borders” argument without realizing it.
Not even close to 35%. Having a hard life is not a qualification for asylum in the US.
 
As a non-Trump supporter you spend a hell of a lot of time on this board doing just that. We know how you'll spin this though - you'll say "asking" is not recommending and shooting "them" doesn't specifically mean women and children. Eyeroll...


He also suggested shooting protestors as well. Spin that

I never said I did not support trump, I said I did not like him. He was/is the lesser of two evils imo and though I hope someone else is the repub nominee, I would vote for him again if he is the only option.

second, ny's post was written in a manner that was intended to insinuate trump recommended shooting women and children specifically, which is just not true which is not what he(trump) meant.

As far as protestors, I agree 100%. If protestors are are damaging property and murdering people they should be stopped. Police should give orders for those breaking the law to stop. If they do not comply, they should attempt to arrest them. If theses attempts at arrest are meet with force from the protestors, then what ever force is necessary to stop the looting, property damage, etc and arrest the criminals doing it should be used. If this includes the need to shoot someone, so be it.
 
I never said I did not support trump, I said I did not like him. He was/is the lesser of two evils imo and though I hope someone else is the repub nominee, I would vote for him again if he is the only option.

second, ny's post was written in a manner that was intended to insinuate trump recommended shooting women and children specifically, which is just not true which is not what he(trump) meant.

As far as protestors, I agree 100%. If protestors are are damaging property and murdering people they should be stopped. Police should give orders for those breaking the law to stop. If they do not comply, they should attempt to arrest them. If theses attempts at arrest are meet with force from the protestors, then what ever force is necessary to stop the looting, property damage, etc and arrest the criminals doing it should be used. If this includes the need to shoot someone, so be it.

He recommended shooting migrants. That includes women and children. But you know what? Let's assume he meant to only shoot dudes. That is still f'd up and batshit crazy. What would Jesus do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dpic73
On paper we do not, but in reality due to lack of any meaningful enforcement we do at this time imo.
This is factually incorrect fear-mongering. We do not have an open border and the election wasn't stolen. Biden has done a poor job of pushing back against the rhetoric but the border is as strictly enforced as it's ever been.

"Rebecca Hamlin, who studies immigration politics as a professor with the University of Massachusetts Amherst and wrote a book on the labeling of migrants, told Newsweek that the political usage of the term "open border" does not reflect reality, saying the Biden administration's policies are relatively restrictive compared to past presidential administrations.

"I've been studying immigration politics for now 20 years, and I haven't seen such a mismatch between the accusations of one party and the policies of the other which are actually not close to open and probably stricter than what we've seen in a long time," Hamlin said.

The Biden administration has received consistent backlash from immigrant rights groups for leaving the Title 42 public health order in place that restricts the channels through which migrants can seek asylum. Furthermore, 2021 saw the U.S. admit the lowest number of refugees it has seen since 1980, with just over 11,400 being allowed into the country.

Libertarian think tank Cato Institute has taken note of this, publishing a September article titled Biden's Border Policy Is Not 'Open Borders,' where it noted that "
Biden's policies and goals are largely the same as those of President Donald Trump."


 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT