The European Union and its establishment center-left politicians often like to castigate the United States for the supposed draconian nature of its immigration policies. The US, however, certainly is granting a far higher percentage of asylum applications than Spain.
Asylum claims are coveted precisely because they confer special benefits that other economic migrants are unable to access. Successful asylum seekers generally have a quick and easy pathway to citizenship, as well as access to housing, education, and healthcare paid for by the government, right off the bat. That is why surging asylum numbers are troubling many on the political right in the United States.
I figured they painted the GOP red since that is the type of ink they use, while professing not to.Not guilty said:The color coding we're familiar with today didn't stick until the iconic election of 2000, when The New York Times and USA Today published their first full-color election maps. The Times spread used red for Republicans because "red begins with r, Republican begins with r," said the senior graphics editor Archie Tse, "it was a more natural association." Red did not always denote the Republican party and blue wasn't always symbolic of Democrats — this now-common lexicon only dates back to the 2000 election. In 1976, NBC debuted its first election map on the air, with bulbs that turned red for Carter-won states (Democratic), and blue for Ford (Republican). This original color scheme was based on Great Britain's political system, which used red to denote the more liberal party. However, other stations used different colors and designations for a variety of ideological and aesthetic reasons.
So it didn't just flip with no one knowing, it was random until 2000.
A billion isn't nearly enough to build it, let alone maintain it.
(With the usual apology for the Koch-$pon$ored propaganda and its unabashed cheerleading for Trump, of course.)This is as good a place as any to point out that people should be free to spend their money however they please. And Kolfage emphasizes that "if we don't reach our goal or come significantly close we will refund every single penny."
Still, even if people were to voluntarily give their own money, the wall would probably require lots of government action. That's because the federal government only owns about a third of the land on the southern border with Mexico. The rest, as Cato Institute immigration policy analyst David Bier noted in a May 2017 article for Reason, belongs to the states, Native American tribes, and private individuals. The government has only barely begin the long process of seizing the land on which the wall would be built.
There are a host of other reasons why building a border wall would be a bad idea. I won't get into all of them here, but you can click on this link to read about some of them.