Originally Posted by
JDogindy
No, they just prefer the idea of presenting that you'll be rounded up like cattle, stuffed into overcrowded rooms, denied basic services, and demeaned since you're a foreign pest for having the gall to leave a hostile environment and trek several thousand miles to an unknown land simply due to some abstract defense that maybe, just maybe, one of those people belongs to a criminal syndicate. All the Bubbas and Bobby Sues who still argue "Build the Wall and Crime will Fall" feel this is justified, ignoring domestic crimes and native issues that lead to crime issues, such as institutionalized racism and classism, since they were too lazy or dumb to bother exploring it, while politicians want to keep their butts in office shall look the other way at these egregious accounts so they can get that donor money and the votes from the aforementioned Bubbas and Bobby Sues.
I'm not arguing that Republicans are the Party of the Stupid and that Democrats are the Party of the Enlightened; both parties prefer keeping the voters in the dark for various reasons since the average American voter isn't going to take their time out of their busy days to do research on a politician's stance on every single topic, and instead pigeonholes it to where the person running for mayor must be in cahoots with the Speaker of the House. I personally feel that Republicans go out of their way more to emphasize that they like their voters ignorant and angry.
Also, although that data you gave me sounds credible, my issue with it is that it doesn't give out the full picture. It only explains that the legal immigration comes from three countries totalling 28.2% for 2011, with Mexico being around 13.5%, for example. I'd like to know the other 71.8% from that year, as the immigration process can vary depending on country to country, particularly given relationships at the time, as countries will be less likely to take on immigrants from countries that they have soured on, and it doesn't explain the average process at the time for someone to have applied for legal immigration to get approved. When you're looking at a more hardline leader that condemns migrants, be they Hispanic or of the Muslim faith, that can make that process more difficult as the people in charge during that process changes, potentially making a smooth-looking process complicated. Not to mention, there's also the fact that these people aren't told that legal immigration is possible, or even that it could be viable. They're coming from Central American countries, which are practically the model of dysfunction on the mainland of the Americas. Besides, I know the asylum process isn't foolproof; people come here and get rejected, and are sent back to wherever it was they tried to leave. But, again; you have to ask yourself, if the legal process is so awesome, why do people keep trying for the asylum approach?
As for what you said about "They should be safe in Mexico"... um... no offense, but it's not like all of Mexico is this wonderful, magical place, and I'm not purposefully painting the country with a broad stroke, but you have to consider why they're not staying in Mexico as a reason why they want to come to the States, sir. Even though the quality of life is better, it's not as much, then there's the drug cartels you have to deal with, and large parts of it are still a developing country.