Illegal border crossings plummet

Illegal border crossings have plummeted this past year. How did that happen? Has 100 new miles of a border wall been that successful, or is there some other reason? (Hint: There is some other reason.)

Five states are stepping up and trying to save women’s sports from an invasion. Biological men are beginning to take over, and Republican lawmakers are trying to protect it.

Mentioned links:

Episode 175: Enforce The Laws We Have [Consider This]

Illegal border crossings nosedive as U.S. extends border patrol policy

Trump’s big border wall win

Challenge to transgender agenda: Five states may require public school athletes to compete according to biological sex

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

Very early in the Trump administration, I mentioned here that just by campaigning on stricter illegal immigration laws, The Donald had managed to curtail illegal crossings. Just 3 months into his presidency, and with no legislation, illegal crossing dropped dramatically. But that didn’t last long. Once they realized that Democrats had their back, especially with these Sanctuary Cities, the illegals were back in full force.

But over the past few months, illegal border crossings have been plummeting again. Why? Well because Trump is now aligning our asylum laws with our refugee laws. When refugees from another country request asylum here, we don’t fly them over here and then determine whether they can stay. They are given a place to stay in-country until they are cleared. Then they are allowed in.

Contrary to this procedure, the process on the southern border was to let those claiming asylum to have a court date given to them and released into the country. But with the massive surge of illegals that began to take advantage of this, it created a security and humanitarian crisis on the border.

About a year ago, The Department of Homeland Security created the Migrant Protection Protocols. Basically, instead of coming into this country to await their hearing, they wait in Mexico where the Mexican government provides for them. With this and similar agreements reached with other Central American countries in recent months, the numbers of those trying to cross illegally have again dropped in a big way.

As an example, arrests in the Border Patrol’s Yuma sector in Arizona hit 14,000 last May. But in October, that number was less than 800, a 94% drop. And it’s stayed at that level ever since.

So my question is; if all these people are really seeking asylum, why do the numbers drop like this when they stay in Mexico rather than being released here? I think what’s happening is that those willing to wait in Mexico are the real asylum seekers. The others realize that if they get caught, they can’t just shout “Asylum!” and stay here anyway.

People respond to incentives. Take away that incentive, and behavior changes. A wall is still a good idea, but in the meantime, so is this.

In response to what can only be described as the beginning of the end of women’s sports, Republican lawmakers in New Hampshire, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, and Missouri have bills in the pipeline that would require public school athletes to compete according to their biological sex as opposed to their gender identities.

Yes, welcome to the 21st century, where we have to enact legislation requiring that only women play women’s sports.

Critics (and you know what side of the political aisle they’re on) say the legislation is unnecessary and could raise constitutional concerns about due process and discrimination.

Yes, welcome to the 21st century, where biology could raise constitutional concerns. Tell me again which party claims to be the party of science?

Ben Shapiro had a great Twitter response to a TIME magazine tweet. TIME was quoting one of their editorials about Elizabeth Warren and the Democratic presidential contenders when they said this, “Wanting a woman to rise to the top of an almost all-male pack is not a position that needs defending. What should be defended is the uncritical desire to elect yet another man to a position that 45 men and zero women have held.” Shapiro dropped a 2-word reply that correctly sets that statement against the backdrop of the culture. He said, “Define woman.”

I mean, who knows, this might be the last presidential election we get the chance to vote for a biological woman. Jockeying for the position of First Woman President might mean we get Josephine Biden or Bernice Sanders.

I have a feeling that at some point in the near term, the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on this. And having already decreed that the definition of marriage that has existed since forever had to change, will find itself, as a consequence, painted into the corner of having to decree that the definitions of male and female that have existed since forever have to change. Chip away at these foundations, for whatever good reason you desire, and soon the building collapses even if it wasn’t your intention. Another way of saying that is that the slope, it is still slippery.

Filed under: Human SexualityImmigrationTransgender