# Illegal immigration down 67 percent under Trump **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781 "2017-04-04T23:41:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/81 "2017-04-13T10:24:35Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because a person cannot be illegal. Only their actions can be illegal. Can a person be a criminal? Or is it only their actions that can be criminal? Are there felons, or just – people whose actions happen to be felonies? If someone tells me a guy is _“a murderer,”_ I don’t stamp my foot and wag a finger and insist that _“no, only his actions can be murder.”_ If someone uses the word _"prostitute,_" I don’t leap to my feet and shout _“a person can’t be a prostitute; it’s merely their actions that can be prostitution.”_ I don’t know you; maybe you likewise object to “shoplifter” and “arsonist” and so on, forever telling folks that a person can’t _be_ such a thing, but can only _do_ it. Do you? Should I? > [@](#): > > I’m not a fan of “undocumented workers” because it’s too euphemistic, as if not being documented is the issue. [stamping my foot and wagging my finger] People cannot be workers! Only their actions can be work! [/stamping my foot and wagging my finger] ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/82 "2017-04-13T12:51:55Z")
> [@Silver\_lining](#): > > No, I am not! It sounds like special type of gear that would be un-unattainable by poor illegals seeking to cross into the USA. > > How much do they weigh? How much do they cost? > > Can 1-2 people carry one in desert like environments for miles? > > Can you go over a 30 foot wall and safety get down the other side? Or would that require two ladders? Yes, special gear that is available at Home Depot. The chain that has dozens and dozens of locations in Mexico. In the US, they cost about $300 and weigh about 60-70 pounds. [Cite.](http://www.homedepot.com/p/Werner-32-ft-Aluminum-Extension-Ladder-with-250-lb-Load-Capacity-Type-I-Duty-Rating-D1332-2/100664581) Shoot, they probably don’t have to even be carried for miles and miles. Throw one on the back of a truck, drive reasonably close to where you want to cross the wall, and then carry it the rest of the way. Leave it there for others to use later. But as to your last question, man, you got me there. I am completely baffled as to how one might scale a 30 foot wall, and then get down the other side. Bringing two ladders is like science-fiction kind of nonsense – totally implausible! Having a rope seems like a stretch too, because I’m not even sure they have ropes in Mexico. As far as I know, the Mexican word for “rope” is “ropa,” and I don’t think the illegals will want to be caught crossing the border with “ropa” on them. Maybe the Messicans can climb up the top of the wall, and then walk along the top of the wall until they reach the end of it, and then jump down from there. It’s also silly to think that [cargo netting](http://23aa11d28fcf2eb980f2-650f7b390294ee3bc134c877ae8a4be4.r52.cf1.rackcdn.com/2011.065.0910_1.590x590.marked.jpg) could be used, because we’re talking about a wall on land, not scaling down the side of a ship. You might have hit on the genius of the wall: these bad hombres will climb up, but then get stuck on the top, like cats in a tree who are unable to scale down. Then our fearless immigration agents can just scoop them up by the dozens. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/83 "2017-04-16T02:00:42Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Because a person cannot be illegal. [illegal](http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/illegal_2)(North American English) a person who lives or works in a country illegally. Clearly it doesn’t matter to you if people disobey the laws of other countries. that’s your prerogative. but what you’re doing is hijacking a word in an attempt to demonize those you disagree with. We are a nation of immigrants. We came here legally under the laws and regulations of this country and expect others to do so. Those who do not are illegal immigrants or illegals for short. ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/84 "2017-04-16T02:07:21Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > We are a nation of immigrants. We came here legally under the laws and regulations of this country and expect others to do so. Meaningless when you’re talking about a time when there were essentially no restrictions on immigration. Also, it ignores the question of the moral legitimacy of immigration restrictions. Borders are a crime against humanity. Those responsible for making and enforcing immigration restrictions are the ones in the wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/85 "2017-04-16T02:29:00Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > Meaningless when you’re talking about a time when there were essentially no restrictions on immigration. It’s not meaningless. We have always controlled the flow of immigrants whether based on health or ability to work. > [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > Also, it ignores the question of the moral legitimacy of immigration restrictions. You’ve expressed a fantasy world that doesn’t exist. If there were no borders the world as we know it would have imploded long ago. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/86 "2017-04-16T17:38:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It’s not meaningless. We have always controlled the flow of immigrants whether based on health or ability to work. Not in the U.S. we haven’t. Restrictions on the flow of immigrants based on health or ability to work began only in 1882, with the [Immigration Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882) of that year, which barred “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of him or herself without becoming a public charge.” Medical inspections began in [1891](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891). Previous federal immigration laws banned would-be immigrants on the basis of national origin (e.g., the Page Act, intended to keep out Chinese prostitutes), and even those date only from the 1870s and 80s. (Laws banning the import of slaves from Africa, of course, date back much earlier.) For the first century of the nation’s existence, basically anybody who could walk, crawl, or be carried off the boat was welcome here, without restriction. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/87 "2017-04-16T19:30:09Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Not in the U.S. we haven’t. Restrictions on the flow of immigrants based on health or ability to work began only in 1882, with the [Immigration Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882) of that year, which barred “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of him or herself without becoming a public charge.” Medical inspections began in [1891](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891). > > Previous federal immigration laws banned would-be immigrants on the basis of national origin (e.g., the Page Act, intended to keep out Chinese prostitutes), and even those date only from the 1870s and 80s. (Laws banning the import of slaves from Africa, of course, date back much earlier.) For the first century of the nation’s existence, basically anybody who could walk, crawl, or be carried off the boat was welcome here, without restriction. Did you really go back over 130’s ago to make a point? Prior to the Louisiana Purchase the United States didn’t exist as the continent-spanning nation it is today. There wasn’t the ability to easily travel great distances. It was a non-issue. When it became an issue we chose to control our borders just as every other nation did. The point you tried to make was disingenuous at best. ---
**Author:** ![Kyomara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8edcca/32.png) [@Kyomara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyomara)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/88 "2017-04-16T21:14:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Did you really go back over 130’s ago to make a point? The point you tried to make was disingenuous at best. It’s a totally legitimate and not at all disingenuous response to this: > [@Magiver](#): > > We are a nation of immigrants. We came here legally under the laws and regulations of this country and expect others to do so. The point is that the immigrant ancestors of many citizens today entered the country with no restriction. That would be the case for my ancestors. I don’t know about yours. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/89 "2017-04-16T21:34:16Z")
> [@Kyomara](#): > > The point is that the immigrant ancestors of many citizens today entered the country with no restriction. That would be the case for my ancestors. I don’t know about yours. The point is that immigrants back then broke no laws, and that – some folks today immigrate by breaking no laws, and some folks today immigrate by breaking the law? I’m honestly not seeing the relevance. Imagine I told you that, back when, there were no laws hereabouts against a man in his twenties drinking a beer – and, nowadays, it’s still legal for some guys in their twenties, who are breaking no laws; but it’s illegal for other guys in their twenties, who’d be breaking the law. And, uh, _so what,_ right? My ancestors legally drank beers at twenty, but it’d be illegal for someone to do that today; _so what?_ ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/90 "2017-04-16T22:35:25Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Did you really go back over 130’s ago to make a point? Prior to the Louisiana Purchase the United States didn’t exist as the continent-spanning nation it is today. There wasn’t the ability to easily travel great distances. It was a non-issue. > > When it became an issue we chose to control our borders just as every other nation did. The point you tried to make was disingenuous at best. The Louisiana Purchase was in 1803. The first immigration restrictions based on health were in 1882. That’s three quarters of a century where a continent-spanning nation accepted all comers. In fact, the first restrictions on the NUMBERS of immigrants came only in 1921. In other words, the United States as a continent-spanning nation allowed unrestricted numbers of immigrants for longer than it has imposed such restrictions. That’s not being disingenuous–that’s being honest and accurate with the facts. And what exactly do you mean by “when it became an issue we chose to control our borders”? What do you regard as the date when we chose to control our borders, and what was the issue, exactly? I regard that date as 1921–that’s when the “golden door” slammed shut. That was well over half a century after the completion of the transcontinental railroad made travel across great distances easy. What really changed was the changes in where the immigrants come from: good solid Americans decided they didn’t want all those funny foreigners, increasingly Catholic and Orthodox rather than Protestant, increasingly from southern and eastern Europe rather than the Anglo-Saxon realms, “polluting” our country. (And yes, it is quite easy to find openly racist speakers arguing why immigration needed to be restricted. Remember this was the [first] heyday of the Red Scare and the KKK.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/91 "2017-04-16T22:44:44Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > The Louisiana Purchase was in 1803. The first immigration restrictions based on health were in 1882. That’s three quarters of a century where a continent-spanning nation accepted all comers. In fact, the first restrictions on the NUMBERS of immigrants came only in 1921. > > In other words, the United States as a continent-spanning nation allowed unrestricted numbers of immigrants for longer than it has imposed such restrictions. I still don’t get the relevance. How long did the law allow men to beat their wives? And yet, now, it’s illegal! And if some wifebeater here and now mentions that guys back in the day used to smack their wives around legally – _so what?_ I don’t care how long it used to be legal! I don’t get why he’s even mentioning it! Hell, it used to be that folks could own slaves. _But that’s illegal now!_ I don’t care how long it used to be legal; the point is the “used to be”, because the question is whether it’s illegal now. Tons of stuff that’s illegal now used to be legal; so what? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/92 "2017-04-17T00:44:34Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I still don’t get the relevance. How long did the law allow men to beat their wives? And yet, now, it’s illegal! And if some wifebeater here and now mentions that guys back in the day used to smack their wives around legally – _so what?_ I don’t care how long it used to be legal! I don’t get why he’s even mentioning it! > > Hell, it used to be that folks could own slaves. _But that’s illegal now!_ I don’t care how long it used to be legal; the point is the “used to be”, because the question is whether it’s illegal now. Tons of stuff that’s illegal now used to be legal; so what? The argument is being made that, “well, MY ancestors followed the law, so why can’t these other people follow the law?” [see #83 for an example] This totally misses the point that when the ancestors of most Americans immigrated, there weren’t any laws to follow–anybody who wanted to come could come. When our ancestors fled the potato famine of the 1840s, or the revolution of 1848 or the political upheavals of the 1860s and 70s, or merely sought a better life in the 18th or 19th centuries, they were free to come without any restriction whatsoever. Those fleeing modern-day famines and political upheavals, though, don’t have the same opportunities. If today’s rules had been in effect way back when, St. Paddy’s Day in Boston would not be memorable, and Lancaster County would have very few Amish, and it would be tough to find cannoli in Queens. Modern would-be immigrants are not somehow different or more criminal than our ancestors; it’s just that the rules have changed. Those changes, and the failure of some people to recognize these changes, is the relevant point. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/93 "2017-04-17T01:08:04Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > The argument is being made that, “well, MY ancestors followed the law, so why can’t these other people follow the law?” [see #83 for an example] > > This totally misses the point that when the ancestors of most Americans immigrated, there weren’t any laws to follow–anybody who wanted to come could come. When our ancestors fled the potato famine of the 1840s, or the revolution of 1848 or the political upheavals of the 1860s and 70s, or merely sought a better life in the 18th or 19th centuries, they were free to come without any restriction whatsoever. I still don’t get it. If someone says the ancestors of most Americans worked back when there were no minimum-wage laws – excuse me, “without any restriction whatsoever” – then I genuinely don’t see what that has to do with the fact that such restrictions are now in place; what was legal then is illegal now, and, well, that’s, uh, true? > [@](#): > > Modern would-be immigrants are not somehow different or more criminal than our ancestors; it’s just that the rules have changed. Those changes, and the failure of some people to recognize these changes, is the relevant point. Yeah, okay; I hereby _recognize that there have been changes_. Used to be, people could discriminate on the basis of sex “without any restriction whatsoever” – and they did so, because it wasn’t illegal then – but now there _are_ restrictions, so now it’s illegal to do that. Folks used to be able to use cocaine legally, and now they can’t; “it’s just that the rules have changed.” Duly noted, okay? I’m sure there are other examples; mention some and I’ll recognize those too. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/94 "2017-04-17T04:15:05Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m sure there are other examples; mention some and I’ll recognize those too. Well the obvious example would be immigration laws. They’re pretty common among other countries. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/95 "2017-04-17T04:54:41Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I still don’t get it. > > If someone says the ancestors of most Americans worked back when there were no minimum-wage laws – excuse me, “without any restriction whatsoever” – then I genuinely don’t see what that has to do with the fact that such restrictions are now in place; what was legal then is illegal now, and, well, that’s, uh, true? > > Yeah, okay; I hereby _recognize that there have been changes_. Used to be, people could discriminate on the basis of sex “without any restriction whatsoever” – and they did so, because it wasn’t illegal then – but now there _are_ restrictions, so now it’s illegal to do that. Folks used to be able to use cocaine legally, and now they can’t; “it’s just that the rules have changed.” Duly noted, okay? > > I’m sure there are other examples; mention some and I’ll recognize those too. Are you arguing that people back then who discriminated on the basis of sex were morally superior to people who discriminate on the basis of sex today, merely because back then there weren’t any laws to restrict it? (I’m going to guess you would not make that argument, but feel free to correct me.) That seems to be the argument being made in posts like #83: people who break immigration laws are lesser beings and inferior to people who lived before such laws existed. I have no idea what my ancestors would have done if they’d been confronted with today’s laws: maybe they would have been law-abiding, and maybe they would have concluded “to hell with the Yankee law, we need to get out of Ireland.” I certainly don’t have grounds to conclude that the fact they never had to make that choice somehow means they were “better” than those who do. People who discriminated on the basis of sex before it was banned were not criminals, but that doesn’t automatically make them worthy of admiration for not breaking the law, so why should people who immigrated before there were immigration laws automatically be worthy of admiration for not violating non-existent laws? Recognizing that there have been changes in the laws requires recognizing how responses have differed and been shaped by the changes in the law. ---
**Author:** ![saturncomet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecd19e/32.png) [@saturncomet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saturncomet)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/96 "2017-04-17T07:46:09Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The main question is, how can the media spin this to be a bad thing? > > [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/4/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/) > > “Testifying to the committee in a first hearing Tuesday, former Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar said the percentage may be even higher than Mr. Trump teases. Compared with 2016, he said, apprehensions on the southwest border were down 67 percent through March.” > > “Mr. Aguilar credits Mr. Trump, who has freed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pursue illegal immigrants in the interior of the U.S. and vowed to tighten border controls.” * * * still too high if trunp got it lower with his discussion and our poor economy so much the better if your illegal you should go home I might have some diff options for dreamers ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/97 "2017-04-17T10:25:23Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Are you arguing that people back then who discriminated on the basis of sex were morally superior to people who discriminate on the basis of sex today, merely because back then there weren’t any laws to restrict it? I’m arguing that, if we catch you doing it today, we’re going to (a) note that you’re breaking the law and we’re going to (b) react accordingly to your illegal activity. And if you say _“but people used to do it legally, because there weren’t any laws to restrict it back then,”_ we’re going to patiently explain that it’s illegal _now_. > [@](#): > > People who discriminated on the basis of sex before it was banned were not criminals, but that doesn’t automatically make them worthy of admiration for not breaking the law, so why should people who immigrated before there were immigration laws automatically be worthy of admiration for not violating non-existent laws? Recognizing that there have been changes in the laws requires recognizing how responses have differed and been shaped by the changes in the law. Uh, yeah; all _sorts_ of stuff that used to be legal here is now illegal, which is why we now respond to it by fining you or jailing you or whatever. That wasn’t how we responded when it was legal, but it’s how we respond now that it’s illegal. I guess I figured everybody on both sides of the debate already knew that: that we respond differently to stuff after it becomes illegal. Again, if a twenty-year-old gets caught drinking a beer, and protests that his ancestors – and mine! – legally drank beer back when there were no laws against it, we’re going to (a) note that; and then (b) point out that, since it’s illegal _now,_ the response will be different. Did people not know that? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2017, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/98 "2017-04-17T17:13:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Well the obvious example would be immigration laws. They’re pretty common among other countries. In fact, oddly, Mexico’s immigration policies and border controls are much more strict that the USA’s. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/99 "2017-04-18T08:51:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In fact, oddly, Mexico’s immigration policies and border controls are much more strict that the USA’s. Forced in part by NAFTA. A lot of people who now need Visas to visit Mexico, or even a work permit for a 24h business trip, did not need such things pre-NAFTA. Those restrictions are Mexico policing the US’s southern borders. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781/100 "2017-04-18T16:56:44Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Forced in part by NAFTA. A lot of people who now need Visas to visit Mexico, or even a work permit for a 24h business trip, did not need such things pre-NAFTA. Those restrictions are Mexico policing the US’s southern borders. Very very small part. Mexico has always been anti-immigration… from points South. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illegal-immigration-down-67-percent-under-trump/783781.md?page=4)