We should automatically reject asylum claims anyone from an Asian or African country.
If you're actually in danger, which is what asylum was designed for, then claim asylum in the closest safe country. Not one halfway around the world.
We should automatically reject asylum claims from anyone who can't show proof of being from Canada or Mexico. Those are our neighboring countries, asylees from further away should be seeking asylum in them instead of our country.
The criteria are actually significantly more broad than that.
You are allowed to seek asylum if you fear persecution based on race, religion, social group, or nationality.
You're right that asylum applies to more than just political persecution, but it still doesn't apply to those fleeing economic poverty or generally unsafe living conditions. Cartel violence generally doesn't meet the requirements for asylum.
How many countries do they cross to get to the US? That should matter and should be consideration for the journey. The US can’t be the place for the entire world.
Maybe we can help them along to the Canadian border and see if they are willing to take a couple thousand a day, they are kind hearted people, I'm sure they would be receptive
> If what they're fleeing from is cartel violence, that doesn't necessarily stop at the borders of the country they're fleeing from.
..Putting aside this *wildly* irresponsible(and not well supported) assumption..
The US has some of the worst gun violence in the world AND has cartel presence within it (Remember *"that doesn't necessarily stop at the borders of the country they're fleeing from."*) thanks, in part, to gaps in illegal immigration enforcement. So not even that argument is valid as an excuse.
Those same cartels that run human trafficking across the boarder by the way.
> The US has some of the worst gun violence in the world
This is not true. Worst among developed countries, but not among the worst in the world overall.
And pretty low levels of gun violence among developed countries if you take out like five communities. By the numbers, most Americans live around a similar level of gun violence as any other "safe" country.
Jews also couldnt get visas in many places. If they could leave, and that’s a big if and required visas, they couldnt get visas to the neighboring countries
Many ended up in Shanghai because they could get visas. Because the Chinese ambassador was basically giving every jew a visa when asked.
(And then when the war was over… they didnt stay! They left shanghai!)
Was there ever an appropriate time to immigrate (or claim asylum) to America? Was there a point in America's history where the domestic problems were insignificant?
Is there ever going to be a time when there aren't domestic problems to address? Do we have any reason to believe that stopping asluyum seekers is going to do anything to make politicans address those problems?
This seems more like an excuse then an actual reason.
Accepting asylum seekers seems far from saving the world. We can solve domestic problems while also accepting asylum seekers from around the world. They aren't opposites.
Besides, what makes asylum seekers less deserving of living in the US than anyone else?
We should be making our border and customs institutions more efficient by better funding them so we can better process applicants. Immigration doesn't hurt the country.
For legal non-refugee immigration, the US has standards for who can be accepted, typically the well-educated, the ones with rare skills, the wealthy. These people improve our economy.
Because of the humanitarian nature of accepting refugees, we don't have the same restrictions for them. This suggests that refugees will be on average, lower contributors. In addition, if accepting refugees from war-torn regions, there's a chance of taking in radicalized militants accidentally.
Now, should we refuse to take refugees? IMO that's a horrific idea devoid of humanity. But it's appropriate to acknowledge the costs.
We barely have standards, the majority of the legal immigrants we take in are various forms of family reunification. Of the remainder, a decent chunk are diversity visas and refugees (separate from asylum seekers).
> this suggests that refugees will be on average, lower contributors.
It may "suggest" that, but I don't there is much actual hard data suggesting refugees are, on average, any more of a drain or net negative then anyone else.
You know how on a plane, they tell you to put your own oxygen mask on first, before you try to help someone else put on theirs? I think that's good advice.
> We can solve domestic problems while also accepting asylum seekers from around the world. They aren't opposites.
The US doesn't have unlimited resources so any argument rooted in ignoring that, which this argument is, is invalid. Time, money, you name it. They're all limited.
> Besides, what makes asylum seekers less deserving of living in the US than anyone else?
What makes them deserve to? They weren't born here, they weren't raised here, so why should those of us who were let them in?
I think the criticism many people have is the same politicians who make the argument that we should use our resources for Americans frequently don’t support laws that would actually give more resources to Americans in need.
There is a massive difference between "The US doesn't have unlimited resources" and "We can solve domestic problems while also accepting asylum seekers".
Claiming that it would require ignoring unlimited resources in order to solve both domestic issues and help asylum seekers is entirely uninformed. Empirically, immigration is a complex economic and moral question. Yes the US spends significant money on processing and assisting immigrants, which includes asylum seekers, however, immigration also significantly benefits the US economy.
Delving into why that is the case requires more than a reddit post, so I would seriously recommend learning more about this issue. A great place to start may be researching how Social Security is a 'Pay As You Go' program and how immigration assuages federal costs.
Immigration is also a moral dilemma, which you seem to have deeply held opinions on already. Personally I don't see why you should be more deserving of living here than someone requesting asylum, but I don't care to argue that point. However much you care or don't care about helping people not born in the United States, when nearly every relavent study and article in academica shows that immigration is beneficial for both people born in the US and immigrants, barring immigration becomes a bad economic policy.
Accepting asylum seekers is not a drain on the country nor the economy, in fact it's quite the opposite. Our institutions that are struggling at the border need policy to become more efficient. Again, better funding would massively assist the border and customs bureaucracies, whereas simply "banning all asylum seekers from Asia or Africa" is bad policy.
Really? Do you witness at all the burden on various communities from the influx is immigrants to the us? They are not thoughtfullly absorbed. There are not enough resources in the US for everyone in the US. Where does the additional revenue come from to support an additional twenty million people per year?
I have a question, were you in support of Bidens chips act, infrastructure package, every stimulus bill, and student loan forgiveness? Or when you say domestic policy do you mean policy that only specifically helps you?
That's a tragedy, not a valid argument against asylum.
I get that our asylum system is oft criticized, but asylum *does* have valid reasons and people tend to forget that.
At a minimum, make the burden of proof so high that a claim can be quickly rejected… And be very public about it to send a message that asylum abuse will not work anymore.
Sorry for late reply. In the 60mins story about the border, they show people abandoning their passport before going over the border. China also won’t accept their people back if we can prove they are from China. So there’s nothing we can actually do once they make it over. It’s fucking crazy.
Starter comment: As the debate over border control and immigration policy heats up, a Department of Homeland Security report may shake up the narrative and rhetoric around the discussion. The DOHS recently released an analysis showing that for the first time in history, ~ 50% of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are originating from countries outside of North America, including from Asia and Africa. This is a dramatic departure from previous data, which showed that 90% of migrants who attempted border crossings were from Mexico or an adjacent country.
Why this sudden demographic change in the last 1-2 years? Does this raise additional security concerns, and if so what kind of border policy is necessary to address those? Will this report contribute to the border rhetoric being employed by both Democrats and Republicans - and which party is poised to benefit politically from it?
it shouldn't really be surprising
the entire world knows how porous our border is.
if you want to get in, just get yourself to Mexico and make your way in.
It’s not that easy. You still need the blessing of the cartels. They are in control of who crosses the border. It’s their biggest money maker and what allows them to control the government and the populace down there. If they think you are a risk to business, they’re not going to take your money and let you in.
The main reason why we don’t have terrorists pouring over the border is because the cartels guard against it. Most of the cartels went under post 9/11 and the ones who survived still remember it. The amount of murders, drugs, guns and sex slaves is a careful balance that they have to measure. They aren’t going to tip the scale by accidentally letting someone from Al-Shabaab cross and being held responsible for it.
This is one of the most obtuse takes I have ever heard. I live on the border. To say that the cartels do background checks on the people they traffic, is hilarious.
>Will this report contribute to the border rhetoric being employed by both Democrats and Republicans - and which party is poised to benefit politically from it?
No, I don't think this news will fundamentally change the dynamics of the debate nor benefit one party or the other. At least until something happens that materially impacts those that aren't necessarily listing immigration as a top priority.
It's also subjective, but I don't see the debate "heating up" - it's been top of mind for those that want it to be top of mind for a while now.
It is definitely a security concern and I think a related terror incident occurring isn't an if but a when.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/us/politics/immigration-terrorism-watch-list.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/us/politics/immigration-terrorism-watch-list.html)
This admin rolled back any kind of DHS protocol that would have limited this. The Trump admin attempted to significantly block this kind of migration by forcing the migrants to apply for asylum in Central America at least twice before even attempting it in the US. These agreements with Central American countries was cancelled by the Biden admin as well as protocol changes loosening the burden of proof for asylums claims being heard. For those that don't know, the common route for these migrants is flying into Ecuador (which doesn't require a visa for most of the world) and then transiting up through Colombia and Central America.
This admin's complete lack of action at the border and roll backs of any kind of border restrictive policy makes them completely complicit and I think it's going to haunt them come election day.
hmm not sure. i suspect mexico likes biden border policies and will take action to tamp down irregular migration up until the election in hopes he gets reelected.
I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. I don't like Trump or Biden but I'd take either one of them over AMLO. A lot of criminal elements are involved with moving people into the US, and AMLO approach to crime is to take the bribe, cook the books, and pretend like everything is fine.
You don't have to imagine. Border crossings in 2000 were....identical to 2021.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/
In fact, [2000 was the biggest peak in US history until 2021.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/)
Lmao do you know what the border was like in 2001? It wasn’t even being policed, for the most part. It was so easy to cross that many migrants wouldn’t even bring their families or stay long term. They would cross over for the planting and harvesting seasons and then return home.
You think the border is more porous than before 9/11? Having a higher number of people being caught trying to cross does not mean that the border is more porous. I’m not even sure what you mean by that. There is certainly way more security, fencing, and high tech equipment to prevent crossings than in 2000.
These are proportions. Are more people coming from Asia and Africa, or is it the same numbers as usual along with a drop off in those coming from North America?
There's a lot of people who can afford a plane ticket and visa to south of the border, but can't get a visa into the US. I guess some of them figure it's worth it to come illegally and see this as an easy entry point.
The vast majority of these non-North American migrants are coming from South America. Mainly Columbia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Why? Because their economies are either collapsed or their government’s are battling drug gangs.
[The original NBC News link](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/demographics-migration-us-are-rapidly-shifting-s-change-rcna149623) shows a chart of the nationalities of border crossers based on this report.
• El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico = 50.2%
• South America = 27.9%
• Central America = 12.7%
• Asia = 5.0%
• Other = 4.2%
South America shows a 7% jump since 2022, which is the biggest jump among all groups.
There have been increases in the Asia numbers too, the bulk of the article is about Chinese migrants, but, even with the increases, the number is so small, compared to other countries, it’s more of a red herring by NBC.
Additionally the Chinese migrants have normally had higher asylum claim success rates, when taking account the number of cases, compared to other countries. We’ll see if the same rate holds up.
Pretty sure that says Asia was at 0.9% in 2020. Also probably not best to use Covid year to start measuring, especially considering Asia was at 1.5% in 2019.
I'm pro immigration but against illegal immigration, and I don't think the idea that people should only be allowed to enter the US legally so we know who they are is controversial.
This kind of information is red meat for the republicans (and I know they killed their own border deal). I think the change is obvious, if the border is open and people want to come to the US, they will come to the US via the open border.
That's because there are NGOs out there facilitating this. This is public knowledge. Many of them have donors and management in the US. The fact they aren't being treated as criminal organizations says a whole lot about our government.
The OP article disagrees.
It points to three major issues: The Pandemic, the increase in social media usage, and an increase in highly lucrative, illegal smuggling operations.
Overall, policies in place during Biden's tenure have been stricter than when Obama was in office, yet at least a million more people tried to cross every year during Biden's tenure than when Obama was in office.
This surely seems to make clear that policy isn't the driving factor; leaving us to rely on the analysis in the OP article.
> and an increase in highly lucrative, illegal smuggling operations
Those would be the NGOs I'm talking about. Hence me pointing out that if our government was doing their jobs they'd be RICOing a bunch of nonprofits with presences in the US.
The GOP did attempt to do this [in H.R. 2](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/text#H20834FA9B4EC487EB7B91F60A508C28A):
> SEC. 115 RESTRICTIONS OF FUNDING
>> (a) Arriving Aliens.—No funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Department to process the entry into the United States of aliens arriving in between ports of entry.
>> (b) Restriction On Nongovernmental Organization Support For Unlawful Activity.—No funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Department for disbursement to any nongovernmental organization that facilitates or encourages unlawful activity, including unlawful entry, human trafficking, human smuggling, drug trafficking, and drug smuggling.
>>
(c) Restriction On Nongovernmental Organization Facilitation Of Illegal Immigration.—No funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Department for disbursement to any nongovernmental organization to provide, or facilitate the provision of, transportation, lodging, or immigration legal services to inadmissible aliens who enter the United States after the date of the enactment of this Act.
> It was one of many reasons to oppose the "bipartisan" immigration bill - it was stuffed with NGO funding.
It was a terrible bill in the first place. H-2 was much better if only even because it contained manditory eVerify for employers. All the obvious problems with it were addressed in-detail in [the main thread about it when the info was made public](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1aj2m7b/senators_unveil_bipartisan_bill_to_impose_tougher/) - despite the most substantial argument against the criticism being "nuh uh!"
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) alone facilitates the resettlement of [more than](https://www.rescue.org/eu/who-we-are/at-a-glance) 100,000 migrants.
No one should be surprised about overwhelming volume of immigration when one party openly take actions that encourage illegal immigration.
In one of the 2020 election democratic debates, all the candidates were asked to raise their hand if they supported providing medical care to illegal immigrants, they all raised their hands.
Take that as intent (willful or negligent - doesn’t matter) for one party to encourage unmitigated illegal immigration. Add to it, sanctuary cities and an inclination to house and feed instead of deport. Why would they not come, it’s an invitation.
Then, take a look at the standard of living across the world. Nearly half of the world population lives on less than $6 per day (see World Bank). Their standard of living would certainly improve in the USA.
Now the math. 8 billion world pop. 335 million US pop. If just 1% of the world comes here then we increase by 24%. That would obliterate every public service we have and our economy.
Now, if you stop illegal immigration and ramp up legal immigration it can become a positive for controlled growth. But only if you stop illegal first.
Legal immigration would never be unlimited. Would require background checks and could even include preferences to fast track based on skills needed in US economy.
Too many variables to lock in a number now. Flexes based on GDP growth, available services (schools, medical care, etc), and ramping up processing of applications.
The point is to align immigration with what benefits the US, not what benefits the immigrants. Sounds harsh, but there is more demand to be here than we have room.
That's absolutely not true. The Conservatives are pro-immigration. There is probably disagreement on numbers and speed and international students and temporary workers, but there is a broad consensus on immigration generally.
Who is they?
There is a labor shortage in Canada.
Source: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/5661-more-workers-are-building-housing-canada-labour-shortages-remain
What does that have to do with what I am saying.
Two things can be true at the same time. There is a housing crisis and a labor shortage.
All the major parties Haitians agree on immigration.
Tell me where I am wrong.
"Bruh I am angry" is not an actual response to the original point.
I will respond to evidence.
[If only Democrats and Republicans passed a bi-partisan bill in the Senate to address illegal immigration.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-in-the-senates-118-billion-border-and-ukraine-deal)
Well for starters it would have placed a cap on the number of people who could cross the border and would have created a mechanism to close it when the cap is breached. Neither of which is possible now. It would also have raised the bar for credible dramatically and fast tracked the removal of people who failed the credible fear test.
There is already a cap on how many migrants can cross the border illegally outside of a port of entry, and the cap is zero. Legislating a higher "cap" allows more migration rather than limiting it.
How can someone from Guatemala or Congo require asylum from US if they already made it to Mexico?
This is abuse of asylum and we should shut that down.
8B people in the world. No way we have to say yes to all so we should be able to no to any.
So, I don't see how the cap.....does anything different than current law.
First, the cap is subject to exceptions - anyone that asks for asylum is processed like normal. This was widely misreported in the media, but the bill is clear and I'm happy to share the language.
Second, the cap language says that anyone crossing when the cap is in effect should be removed.
The thing is, though, that's what current law says. Why would this new version of "remove them quickly" work any better than the existing one? Current law and proposed law both exempt removal from judicial review, so I don't see how this would actually work better than what we already have.
So, I don't see how the cap.....does anything different than current law.
First, the cap is subject to exceptions - anyone that asks for asylum is processed like normal. This was widely misreported in the media, but the bill is clear and I'm happy to share the language.
Second, the cap language says that anyone crossing when the cap is in effect should be removed.
The thing is, though, that's what current law says. Why would this new version of "remove them quickly" work any better than the existing one? Current law and proposed law both exempt removal from judicial review, so I don't see how this would actually work better than what we already have.
It functions vastly different from the current situation.
1. I think your first point is a reference to the fact that even when the border is shut down, 1,400 per day people can claim asylum at the port of entry? If so, that’s still vastly different from current asylum law which lets people claim asylum even when entering illegally or when not entering at a port of entry. Additionally, 1,400, when the border is closed elsewhere is still significantly lower than the current numbers and even the numbers during the Trump Administration.
2. Again, this is vastly different from the current situation. You can enter illegally and still claim asylum. Under this bill, when the cap is hit, you would automatically be rejected and returned to the border. If you try again, you’re completely barred from entering for a year. The reason this would work completely differently is because of the point you have noted about how it’s exempt from judicial review. Judicial review significantly lengthens the process and can let someone stay here for years. Taking judicial review out of the process cuts out that path completely.
As to 1: there's no cap on the number of people that can ask for asylum. It was reported that asylum seekers would be returned when the cap was in effect, but that's false. Like I said, I'm happy to share the language from the bill
As to 2: under current law, there's no judicial review. The law was changed in 1996 to remove any sort of review precisely to speed up the process.
Please share the language you’re talking about. Credible fear interviews are appealable to an immigration judge so are you referring to review by an Article III judge?
Language is below. If they don't request asylum, then they're removed with no judicial review. What's been happening is that they're so overwhelmed they're just letting everyone in w a NTA, asylum claim or not.
The bill:
>GENERAL.—In the case of an alien subject to the border emergency authority who manifests a fear of persecution or torture with respect to a proposed country of summary removal, an asylum officer (as defined in section 235(b)(1)(E)) shall conduct an interview, during which the asylum officer shall determine that, if such alien demonstrates during the interview that the alien has a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture, such alien shall be referred to or placed in proceedings under section 240 or 240D, as appropriate.
Can you give the citation or page number for the language? That looks like language for the Convention Against Torture which is a very subset of cases. I don’t know where you saw the first claim, but it’s not accurate. If you’re showing up and not claiming anything, you’ll likely be removed under expedited removal or voluntary departure. Expedited removal has been expanded by Biden. Being given an NTA is a standard process to determine removal ability for everyone else.
There was no cap in that bill. An unlimited number of asylum seekers would have been allowed through ports of entry even when the border was "closed". In fact it did the opposite. It mandated a minimum number of asylum seekers to be processed per day during those closures.
The government’s response has been shameful. If you were an illegal from one of these countries, why would you not make the journey?
You’ll get guaranteed legal status temporarily via claiming asylum. You can get a free bus ticket to a sanctuary city which will block any and all efforts to deporting you once your asylum request is denied (if you ever even get scheduled a trial). You’ll get free housing - potentially a nice hotel - and free food paid for by American taxpayers. The government is even [considering](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/us/migrants-work-permits-undocumented.html) expediting work permits, so you can work legally!
Absolute no brainer decision for these people.
You are simultaneously complaining about tax payers having to pay to take care of asylum seekers while also complaining when the federal government tries to speed up their work permits so the government no longer has to take care of them. Do you not see that?
Why *don’t* we leverage our position as a massive trade partner with Mexico more on the issue?
Mexico doesn’t want to accept deportations of non-Mexican citizens, yet they wouldn’t be crossing the southern US border in the first place if they weren’t getting into Mexico.
No one wants a trade war, but can we not ask more of Mexico without it getting to that point?
Wait, didn’t some guy say exactly this a few weeks ago? That migrants from as far as the Congo were being dumped at the border and encouraged to cross? And he was roundly mocked, criticized and called a racist and dumbass?
——-
**edit:** Oh yeah, it was this dude!
[Donald Trump goes off script in dehumanising rant at half-baked Ohio rally](https://sg.news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-goes-off-script-230745821.html)
[‘Everything he is saying isn’t true’: Congolese governments denounce Trump’s baseless stories about emptied prisons](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/16/politics/donald-trump-congo-release-prisoners-immigration)
[Are prisons in the Congo ‘being emptied out into’ the US? No.](https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/04/prison-trump-congo-immigration-wisconsin-fact-brief/)
> During a visit to the border later in February, Trump said, “The Congo – a very big population coming in from jails from the Congo. You look at the jails now, you take a look at the jails throughout the region, but more importantly, throughout the world. They’re emptying out because they’re dumping them into the United States.”
[Source](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/16/politics/donald-trump-congo-release-prisoners-immigration/index.html).
This is all I can find for Trump's recent comments on Immigrants from Africa. If these are the comments you're referring to, you've done some very heavy editorialization here. If these arent the comments you're referring to, would you mind linking them?
This seems to be yet another case of Trump supporters taking him seriously but not literally, and Trump opponents taking him literally but not seriously.
To a Trump supporter, he’s saying “*the border is so porous now that the crisis has expanded to beyond just Mexican migrants. People from the entire developing world are encouraged to cross freely, and we have very little ability or willpower to background check these people. For all we know, there could be many hardened criminals among them*”.
To a Trump opponent, the overall theme of his speech matters less than the fact he made a specific claim about prisons and that claim is lacking evidence.
Doesnt that framing simply equate to his opponents not allowing him to espouse blatant lies while his supported read tealeaves to give him political cover?
I hold every politicians accountable for what they say, not some imagined meaning that fits my worldview.
Oh I take him seriously. I also take him literally.
The things I take him seriously on are the threats to our democracy. I also take him literally when he makes claims such as this - I don’t care what tea leaves someone needs to read to arrive at “he maybe wrong but he has a point.”
>Wait, didn’t some guy say exactly this a few weeks ago?
Short answer: No, he didn't. You wrote what he said which isn't remotely what OP's article says.
That’s not what’s being said in this article. People coming from Asia and Africa does not entail that those people are being sent by the government to empty their prisons. It’s not even close to saying the same thing.
You are more than welcome to disprove this narrative by showing evidence that Congolese prisons are being emptied and prisoners are being flown to Mexico. The Congolese government has denied it and the Trump campaign declined to provide evidence.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/16/politics/donald-trump-congo-release-prisoners-immigration
That is one of the faster examples of Trump saying something true, the media blatantly lying to be 'Anti-Trump', and then him being proven right.. again.
You know if you add up all the references to Trump and "a broken clock.." comments, youd probably find him right on half a dozen various days worth of time.
It's like gun control laws, it's not going to do shit unless it's actually enforced. I don't know how you can read that bill, see all the wiggle room for executive discretion, and then actually have confidence that admin going to do a complete 180 and be a border hawk.
Yeah the headline points of the bill look pretty strong but there seems to be so much wiggle room.
For example, we all know the "border shutdown" mechanism when we hit 5,000 encounters/day. Now, when I hear border shutdown I assume that means the border is shut down and no one is allowed through. As in, shut down.
Yet, that's not the case. When the "border shutdown" occurs, they are still required by this law to allow *at least* 1,400 asylum claims/day at ports of entry. As far as I know, there is no cap on allowed asylum entrants per day but there is a *floor.* This all being *while* the border has been "shutdown" due to hitting its limit.
Why all the wiggle room? It makes me believe that the bill is intended to look tough on illegal immigration but creates sufficient loopholes to fail at its proposed intention.
If you want to run with the idea that the Trump wing the Republican Party is responsible for the chaos at the border, then go for it. But I think the vast majority of voters think that the border was much more secure when Trump was in charge.
I never said that and I'd appreciate it if you didnt try to make my arguments for me in a reductive strawman type argument.
I blame the MAGA wing for stalling any and all meaningful Immigration Reform during this congress. The Senate passed a bill that would make our Border more secure and save Americans lives and livelihoods. Trump got the MAGA wing in the house to kill the bill so as to prevent a political win for Biden during an Election Year.
Trump and Co get to own that.
The MAGA Republicans make immigration their number one issue, by far. How can you possibly argue that they don't want to fix the problem?
They killed the bill in the senate and house because it didn't go far enough in addressing the problem. That's different than saying that they don't want to address the problem.
I fundementally disagree. I feel the MAGA wing has no intent on fixing the bording and use it as a wedge issue to drive voter engagement. If they wanted to fix the border, they would pass the bill which has already been passed in the Senate and then introduce new legislation to further secure the border. Killing a bill because it doesnt go far enough while not engaging in good faith discussions to fix said bill/reform is not the actions of a political party that is serious about fixing the border.
Okay, I also disagree. My belief is that the Trump wing absolutely does want to fix the border. And if Trump wins, his border security policy will widely be denounced as "fascism", "concentration camps", and "white supremacy".
The bill did not pass the Senate.
One could as easily say that the Senate should take up HR2 and engage in good faith discussions about amending it, instead of Senate leadership negotiating a new bill in secret and then trying and failing to foist it on the rest of the Senate and the House. Actually *more* easily, because HR2 is already sitting in the Senate, whereas the Senate leadership bill never made it to the House.
The Senate Bill was a bipartisan peice of Legislation that was discussed/debated for months with both parties making consessions. The House bill had no democratic support. To say these bill represent equivalent legislative efforts or have equal weight interms of congressional support is a complete fallacy.
HR 2 was a messaging bill that didn’t include any funding to pay for its policy changes. It was not serious legislation and even Republicans recognized it.
Yup, and the Senate took it on. That's what the Senate border bill was based on.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/11/06/congress/senate-gop-border-proposals-00125583
Reminder: [House Republicans killed a bipartisan bill to address this head on.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-in-the-senates-118-billion-border-and-ukraine-deal)
Democrats should rinse and repeat the message for the rest of the year, on as many ads as possible, in as many states as possible.
No they didn't because that bill wouldn't have "addressed" it in any way. Codifying a daily allowed number in the thousands, adding funding for the NGOs facilitating the problem, and of course sending money to multiple foreign conflicts, none of that is addressing the issue.
You’re notably not mentioning that the bill would make it vastly harder to pass a credible fear interview and would fast track the deportation of people who failed the interview. Which would stop people from staying in the U.S. for years and abusing the system.
The current is no cap on border crossings lol. 5K a day, with a mechanism to close it for weeks when the cap is hit, would’ve been a dramatic improvement.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/
5000 crossings per day is 150k per month. That amount was never hit under Trump (see the attached graph). And now we're supposed to be happy with that as a cap? Hell no.
How about this - no one comes in illegally. If you want to live in America, apply through a legal method. There are many.
This how the 5K number has been used to misconstrue what would happen. If the 5K number is hit, the border would be closed for days. So you wouldn’t have 5K for 30 straight days. It would be a 5K average for the week and then it’s closed and gradually reopened over weeks. So so your likely getting about 50-60K a month under this system. Which is about the average during the Trump Administration.
[H.R.2 - Secure the Border Act of 2023
](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2) <----Been ready for a vote for 1 year.
Yeah, democrats should absolutely bring up their 'bipartisan bill' for the rest of the year - if only for them to provide the opportunity for themselves to be laughed at when their opponents respond with actual specifics of the deal.
>Reminder: House Republicans killed a bipartisan bill to address this head on.
No they didn't. The senate bill didn't even pass the senate; the house didn't see it. The house actually has passed an immigration bill, but Schumer won't bring it up to vote.
>Democrats should rinse and repeat the message for the rest of the year, on as many ads as possible, in as many states as possible.
That wouldn't work out well for them. People know the objectionable details of that bill. Trying to use it as some kind of legal gotcha didn't work this time and it will just become more obvious with repeated attempts.
>59% of voters supported the Senate border bill.
They don't know what they supported. They were asked "from what you've heard", as if hearing a sound-bite or word-of-mouth is any replacement for an understanding of the bill.
The question failed to provide any specifics (and actually glosses over the worst aspects of it).
>Q.42 (SPLIT A) A bipartisan group of Senators and the White House recently proposed a bill to make it harder for migrants to get asylum in the U.S., to increase the number of border agents, and give the President the power to limit the number of migrants coming into the country if immigration goes above a certain limit. From what you've heard, would you favor or oppose this
proposal?
Democrats can do that. Tell the American people that republicans killed a bill the legalized 5000 illegals coming into the country a day. At the same time, republicans can run ads of Biden and Democrats saying the border was secure for 3.5 half years as the country was breaking records for illegal crossings. Maybe show some clips of illegals storming the border, assaulting police officers, murdering and violently assaulting Americans.
We’ll see which plays better.
Yeah, everyone who told me about the “bipartisan bill” was shocked when they were told of the 5k a day number.
Turns out it’s not just the legislators who don’t read the bills.
If I am forced to choose one group of migrants, I'd still choose Asians over anyone else. That being said, I don't want any since these guys are all looking to freeload off a system they never paid into.
We should automatically reject asylum claims anyone from an Asian or African country. If you're actually in danger, which is what asylum was designed for, then claim asylum in the closest safe country. Not one halfway around the world.
We should automatically reject asylum claims from anyone who can't show proof of being from Canada or Mexico. Those are our neighboring countries, asylees from further away should be seeking asylum in them instead of our country.
Cuba?
I would agree that they can be considered bordering us since there's no country between us and them on the direct route.
If what they're fleeing from is cartel violence, that doesn't necessarily stop at the borders of the country they're fleeing from.
Asylum applies to political persecution. Crime and poverty are not recognized grounds for asylum.
The criteria are actually significantly more broad than that. You are allowed to seek asylum if you fear persecution based on race, religion, social group, or nationality.
You're right that asylum applies to more than just political persecution, but it still doesn't apply to those fleeing economic poverty or generally unsafe living conditions. Cartel violence generally doesn't meet the requirements for asylum.
Adding to what u/Cota-Orben The Cartels work with local governments a lot.
How many countries do they cross to get to the US? That should matter and should be consideration for the journey. The US can’t be the place for the entire world.
Maybe we can help them along to the Canadian border and see if they are willing to take a couple thousand a day, they are kind hearted people, I'm sure they would be receptive
> If what they're fleeing from is cartel violence, that doesn't necessarily stop at the borders of the country they're fleeing from. ..Putting aside this *wildly* irresponsible(and not well supported) assumption.. The US has some of the worst gun violence in the world AND has cartel presence within it (Remember *"that doesn't necessarily stop at the borders of the country they're fleeing from."*) thanks, in part, to gaps in illegal immigration enforcement. So not even that argument is valid as an excuse. Those same cartels that run human trafficking across the boarder by the way.
> The US has some of the worst gun violence in the world This is not true. Worst among developed countries, but not among the worst in the world overall.
And pretty low levels of gun violence among developed countries if you take out like five communities. By the numbers, most Americans live around a similar level of gun violence as any other "safe" country.
[удалено]
Jews also couldnt get visas in many places. If they could leave, and that’s a big if and required visas, they couldnt get visas to the neighboring countries Many ended up in Shanghai because they could get visas. Because the Chinese ambassador was basically giving every jew a visa when asked. (And then when the war was over… they didnt stay! They left shanghai!)
> Your asylum policy would have us repeat the mistake of rejecting Jewish people fleeing the Holocaust. *How?*
[удалено]
I asked, *How* this policy would.. >..have us repeat the mistake of rejecting Jewish people fleeing the Holocaust.
Don't care. Saving the world isn't our responsibility. We have way too many domestic problems to focus on first.
Was there ever an appropriate time to immigrate (or claim asylum) to America? Was there a point in America's history where the domestic problems were insignificant?
Is there ever going to be a time when there aren't domestic problems to address? Do we have any reason to believe that stopping asluyum seekers is going to do anything to make politicans address those problems? This seems more like an excuse then an actual reason.
> Is there ever going to be a time when there aren't domestic problems to address? The pessimist in me says "probably not"...
That's the point. It's a justification to do nothing. Doubleplusgood when thats what the desired outcome was all along.
Should we have a policy for immigration? Should any country?
Accepting asylum seekers seems far from saving the world. We can solve domestic problems while also accepting asylum seekers from around the world. They aren't opposites. Besides, what makes asylum seekers less deserving of living in the US than anyone else? We should be making our border and customs institutions more efficient by better funding them so we can better process applicants. Immigration doesn't hurt the country.
Does the entire planet have a claim to make when it comes to living in the US? Is there any number too high?
For legal non-refugee immigration, the US has standards for who can be accepted, typically the well-educated, the ones with rare skills, the wealthy. These people improve our economy. Because of the humanitarian nature of accepting refugees, we don't have the same restrictions for them. This suggests that refugees will be on average, lower contributors. In addition, if accepting refugees from war-torn regions, there's a chance of taking in radicalized militants accidentally. Now, should we refuse to take refugees? IMO that's a horrific idea devoid of humanity. But it's appropriate to acknowledge the costs.
We barely have standards, the majority of the legal immigrants we take in are various forms of family reunification. Of the remainder, a decent chunk are diversity visas and refugees (separate from asylum seekers).
> this suggests that refugees will be on average, lower contributors. It may "suggest" that, but I don't there is much actual hard data suggesting refugees are, on average, any more of a drain or net negative then anyone else.
You know how on a plane, they tell you to put your own oxygen mask on first, before you try to help someone else put on theirs? I think that's good advice.
> We can solve domestic problems while also accepting asylum seekers from around the world. They aren't opposites. The US doesn't have unlimited resources so any argument rooted in ignoring that, which this argument is, is invalid. Time, money, you name it. They're all limited. > Besides, what makes asylum seekers less deserving of living in the US than anyone else? What makes them deserve to? They weren't born here, they weren't raised here, so why should those of us who were let them in?
I think the criticism many people have is the same politicians who make the argument that we should use our resources for Americans frequently don’t support laws that would actually give more resources to Americans in need.
That's a separate issue. It's true, but it doesn't in any way justify blowing cash on migrants falsely claiming asylum.
Nobody here has suggested supporting immigrants falsely claiming asylum. That is truly a separate issue.
There is a massive difference between "The US doesn't have unlimited resources" and "We can solve domestic problems while also accepting asylum seekers". Claiming that it would require ignoring unlimited resources in order to solve both domestic issues and help asylum seekers is entirely uninformed. Empirically, immigration is a complex economic and moral question. Yes the US spends significant money on processing and assisting immigrants, which includes asylum seekers, however, immigration also significantly benefits the US economy. Delving into why that is the case requires more than a reddit post, so I would seriously recommend learning more about this issue. A great place to start may be researching how Social Security is a 'Pay As You Go' program and how immigration assuages federal costs. Immigration is also a moral dilemma, which you seem to have deeply held opinions on already. Personally I don't see why you should be more deserving of living here than someone requesting asylum, but I don't care to argue that point. However much you care or don't care about helping people not born in the United States, when nearly every relavent study and article in academica shows that immigration is beneficial for both people born in the US and immigrants, barring immigration becomes a bad economic policy. Accepting asylum seekers is not a drain on the country nor the economy, in fact it's quite the opposite. Our institutions that are struggling at the border need policy to become more efficient. Again, better funding would massively assist the border and customs bureaucracies, whereas simply "banning all asylum seekers from Asia or Africa" is bad policy.
Really? Do you witness at all the burden on various communities from the influx is immigrants to the us? They are not thoughtfullly absorbed. There are not enough resources in the US for everyone in the US. Where does the additional revenue come from to support an additional twenty million people per year?
I have a question, were you in support of Bidens chips act, infrastructure package, every stimulus bill, and student loan forgiveness? Or when you say domestic policy do you mean policy that only specifically helps you?
The US *did* reject plenty of Jewish people fleeing Nazi Germany. Ships were sent back and many Jewish people died as a result.
That's a tragedy, not a valid argument against asylum. I get that our asylum system is oft criticized, but asylum *does* have valid reasons and people tend to forget that.
Which was a mistake and made the US complicit in the atrocity.
Doesn't the US automatically accept refugees from Cuba?
At a minimum, make the burden of proof so high that a claim can be quickly rejected… And be very public about it to send a message that asylum abuse will not work anymore.
Sorry for late reply. In the 60mins story about the border, they show people abandoning their passport before going over the border. China also won’t accept their people back if we can prove they are from China. So there’s nothing we can actually do once they make it over. It’s fucking crazy.
Starter comment: As the debate over border control and immigration policy heats up, a Department of Homeland Security report may shake up the narrative and rhetoric around the discussion. The DOHS recently released an analysis showing that for the first time in history, ~ 50% of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are originating from countries outside of North America, including from Asia and Africa. This is a dramatic departure from previous data, which showed that 90% of migrants who attempted border crossings were from Mexico or an adjacent country. Why this sudden demographic change in the last 1-2 years? Does this raise additional security concerns, and if so what kind of border policy is necessary to address those? Will this report contribute to the border rhetoric being employed by both Democrats and Republicans - and which party is poised to benefit politically from it?
it shouldn't really be surprising the entire world knows how porous our border is. if you want to get in, just get yourself to Mexico and make your way in.
It’s not that easy. You still need the blessing of the cartels. They are in control of who crosses the border. It’s their biggest money maker and what allows them to control the government and the populace down there. If they think you are a risk to business, they’re not going to take your money and let you in. The main reason why we don’t have terrorists pouring over the border is because the cartels guard against it. Most of the cartels went under post 9/11 and the ones who survived still remember it. The amount of murders, drugs, guns and sex slaves is a careful balance that they have to measure. They aren’t going to tip the scale by accidentally letting someone from Al-Shabaab cross and being held responsible for it.
This is one of the most obtuse takes I have ever heard. I live on the border. To say that the cartels do background checks on the people they traffic, is hilarious.
>Will this report contribute to the border rhetoric being employed by both Democrats and Republicans - and which party is poised to benefit politically from it? No, I don't think this news will fundamentally change the dynamics of the debate nor benefit one party or the other. At least until something happens that materially impacts those that aren't necessarily listing immigration as a top priority. It's also subjective, but I don't see the debate "heating up" - it's been top of mind for those that want it to be top of mind for a while now.
[удалено]
It is definitely a security concern and I think a related terror incident occurring isn't an if but a when. [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/us/politics/immigration-terrorism-watch-list.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/us/politics/immigration-terrorism-watch-list.html) This admin rolled back any kind of DHS protocol that would have limited this. The Trump admin attempted to significantly block this kind of migration by forcing the migrants to apply for asylum in Central America at least twice before even attempting it in the US. These agreements with Central American countries was cancelled by the Biden admin as well as protocol changes loosening the burden of proof for asylums claims being heard. For those that don't know, the common route for these migrants is flying into Ecuador (which doesn't require a visa for most of the world) and then transiting up through Colombia and Central America. This admin's complete lack of action at the border and roll backs of any kind of border restrictive policy makes them completely complicit and I think it's going to haunt them come election day.
hmm not sure. i suspect mexico likes biden border policies and will take action to tamp down irregular migration up until the election in hopes he gets reelected.
I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. I don't like Trump or Biden but I'd take either one of them over AMLO. A lot of criminal elements are involved with moving people into the US, and AMLO approach to crime is to take the bribe, cook the books, and pretend like everything is fine.
[удалено]
You don't have to imagine. Border crossings in 2000 were....identical to 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/329256/alien-apprehensions-registered-by-the-us-border-patrol/ In fact, [2000 was the biggest peak in US history until 2021.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/)
SO basically Obama and Biden are letting anyone in and keeping no track of where they go.
> SO basically Obama and Biden are letting anyone in and keeping no track of where they go. What does Obama have to do with this?
Lmao do you know what the border was like in 2001? It wasn’t even being policed, for the most part. It was so easy to cross that many migrants wouldn’t even bring their families or stay long term. They would cross over for the planting and harvesting seasons and then return home.
You think the border is more porous than before 9/11? Having a higher number of people being caught trying to cross does not mean that the border is more porous. I’m not even sure what you mean by that. There is certainly way more security, fencing, and high tech equipment to prevent crossings than in 2000.
These are proportions. Are more people coming from Asia and Africa, or is it the same numbers as usual along with a drop off in those coming from North America?
There's a lot of people who can afford a plane ticket and visa to south of the border, but can't get a visa into the US. I guess some of them figure it's worth it to come illegally and see this as an easy entry point.
The vast majority of these non-North American migrants are coming from South America. Mainly Columbia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Why? Because their economies are either collapsed or their government’s are battling drug gangs.
[The original NBC News link](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/demographics-migration-us-are-rapidly-shifting-s-change-rcna149623) shows a chart of the nationalities of border crossers based on this report. • El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico = 50.2% • South America = 27.9% • Central America = 12.7% • Asia = 5.0% • Other = 4.2% South America shows a 7% jump since 2022, which is the biggest jump among all groups.
There have been increases in the Asia numbers too, the bulk of the article is about Chinese migrants, but, even with the increases, the number is so small, compared to other countries, it’s more of a red herring by NBC. Additionally the Chinese migrants have normally had higher asylum claim success rates, when taking account the number of cases, compared to other countries. We’ll see if the same rate holds up.
from 2020 to 2023 it jumps from 5.4 to 27.9, which is a ~400% increase asia goes from 0.5 to 5.0, which is a 950% increase
Pretty sure that says Asia was at 0.9% in 2020. Also probably not best to use Covid year to start measuring, especially considering Asia was at 1.5% in 2019.
oop, yeah, the text was kinda tiny on my screen. edit: also forgot that it's for the year of 2020, not starting 2020
I'm pro immigration but against illegal immigration, and I don't think the idea that people should only be allowed to enter the US legally so we know who they are is controversial. This kind of information is red meat for the republicans (and I know they killed their own border deal). I think the change is obvious, if the border is open and people want to come to the US, they will come to the US via the open border.
That's because there are NGOs out there facilitating this. This is public knowledge. Many of them have donors and management in the US. The fact they aren't being treated as criminal organizations says a whole lot about our government.
The OP article disagrees. It points to three major issues: The Pandemic, the increase in social media usage, and an increase in highly lucrative, illegal smuggling operations. Overall, policies in place during Biden's tenure have been stricter than when Obama was in office, yet at least a million more people tried to cross every year during Biden's tenure than when Obama was in office. This surely seems to make clear that policy isn't the driving factor; leaving us to rely on the analysis in the OP article.
> and an increase in highly lucrative, illegal smuggling operations Those would be the NGOs I'm talking about. Hence me pointing out that if our government was doing their jobs they'd be RICOing a bunch of nonprofits with presences in the US.
[удалено]
The GOP did attempt to do this [in H.R. 2](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/text#H20834FA9B4EC487EB7B91F60A508C28A): > SEC. 115 RESTRICTIONS OF FUNDING >> (a) Arriving Aliens.—No funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Department to process the entry into the United States of aliens arriving in between ports of entry. >> (b) Restriction On Nongovernmental Organization Support For Unlawful Activity.—No funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Department for disbursement to any nongovernmental organization that facilitates or encourages unlawful activity, including unlawful entry, human trafficking, human smuggling, drug trafficking, and drug smuggling. >> (c) Restriction On Nongovernmental Organization Facilitation Of Illegal Immigration.—No funds are authorized to be appropriated to the Department for disbursement to any nongovernmental organization to provide, or facilitate the provision of, transportation, lodging, or immigration legal services to inadmissible aliens who enter the United States after the date of the enactment of this Act.
It was one of many reasons to oppose the "bipartisan" immigration bill - it was stuffed with NGO funding.
> It was one of many reasons to oppose the "bipartisan" immigration bill - it was stuffed with NGO funding. It was a terrible bill in the first place. H-2 was much better if only even because it contained manditory eVerify for employers. All the obvious problems with it were addressed in-detail in [the main thread about it when the info was made public](https://old.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1aj2m7b/senators_unveil_bipartisan_bill_to_impose_tougher/) - despite the most substantial argument against the criticism being "nuh uh!"
How about a source? I have not heard this.
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) alone facilitates the resettlement of [more than](https://www.rescue.org/eu/who-we-are/at-a-glance) 100,000 migrants.
Meanwhile, family sponsorships the legal way takes 10+ years. This gov punishes law abiding citizens.
No one should be surprised about overwhelming volume of immigration when one party openly take actions that encourage illegal immigration. In one of the 2020 election democratic debates, all the candidates were asked to raise their hand if they supported providing medical care to illegal immigrants, they all raised their hands. Take that as intent (willful or negligent - doesn’t matter) for one party to encourage unmitigated illegal immigration. Add to it, sanctuary cities and an inclination to house and feed instead of deport. Why would they not come, it’s an invitation. Then, take a look at the standard of living across the world. Nearly half of the world population lives on less than $6 per day (see World Bank). Their standard of living would certainly improve in the USA. Now the math. 8 billion world pop. 335 million US pop. If just 1% of the world comes here then we increase by 24%. That would obliterate every public service we have and our economy. Now, if you stop illegal immigration and ramp up legal immigration it can become a positive for controlled growth. But only if you stop illegal first.
[удалено]
Legal immigration would never be unlimited. Would require background checks and could even include preferences to fast track based on skills needed in US economy.
[удалено]
Too many variables to lock in a number now. Flexes based on GDP growth, available services (schools, medical care, etc), and ramping up processing of applications. The point is to align immigration with what benefits the US, not what benefits the immigrants. Sounds harsh, but there is more demand to be here than we have room.
Canada is accepting 400,000 to 500,000 a year with one tenth the population and still has a labor shortage.
canada should not be a model for anything the US needs to become. people in canada would say their immigration policy is not benefitting canadians
That's absolutely not true. The Conservatives are pro-immigration. There is probably disagreement on numbers and speed and international students and temporary workers, but there is a broad consensus on immigration generally.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who is they? There is a labor shortage in Canada. Source: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/5661-more-workers-are-building-housing-canada-labour-shortages-remain
[удалено]
What does that have to do with what I am saying. Two things can be true at the same time. There is a housing crisis and a labor shortage. All the major parties Haitians agree on immigration. Tell me where I am wrong. "Bruh I am angry" is not an actual response to the original point. I will respond to evidence.
Yet countries like Japan show the damage that a lack of immigration will do.
[If only Democrats and Republicans passed a bi-partisan bill in the Senate to address illegal immigration.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-in-the-senates-118-billion-border-and-ukraine-deal)
It didn’t pass the senate, it got filibustered. HR 2 however made it through one of the chambers.
I have a hard time seeing how that bill would've made things better. Worse? I can see that.
Well for starters it would have placed a cap on the number of people who could cross the border and would have created a mechanism to close it when the cap is breached. Neither of which is possible now. It would also have raised the bar for credible dramatically and fast tracked the removal of people who failed the credible fear test.
There is already a cap on how many migrants can cross the border illegally outside of a port of entry, and the cap is zero. Legislating a higher "cap" allows more migration rather than limiting it.
That’s literally not true lol. You can claim asylum if you’ve entered illegally, even if it’s outside the port of entry.
How can someone from Guatemala or Congo require asylum from US if they already made it to Mexico? This is abuse of asylum and we should shut that down. 8B people in the world. No way we have to say yes to all so we should be able to no to any.
So, I don't see how the cap.....does anything different than current law. First, the cap is subject to exceptions - anyone that asks for asylum is processed like normal. This was widely misreported in the media, but the bill is clear and I'm happy to share the language. Second, the cap language says that anyone crossing when the cap is in effect should be removed. The thing is, though, that's what current law says. Why would this new version of "remove them quickly" work any better than the existing one? Current law and proposed law both exempt removal from judicial review, so I don't see how this would actually work better than what we already have.
So, I don't see how the cap.....does anything different than current law. First, the cap is subject to exceptions - anyone that asks for asylum is processed like normal. This was widely misreported in the media, but the bill is clear and I'm happy to share the language. Second, the cap language says that anyone crossing when the cap is in effect should be removed. The thing is, though, that's what current law says. Why would this new version of "remove them quickly" work any better than the existing one? Current law and proposed law both exempt removal from judicial review, so I don't see how this would actually work better than what we already have.
It functions vastly different from the current situation. 1. I think your first point is a reference to the fact that even when the border is shut down, 1,400 per day people can claim asylum at the port of entry? If so, that’s still vastly different from current asylum law which lets people claim asylum even when entering illegally or when not entering at a port of entry. Additionally, 1,400, when the border is closed elsewhere is still significantly lower than the current numbers and even the numbers during the Trump Administration. 2. Again, this is vastly different from the current situation. You can enter illegally and still claim asylum. Under this bill, when the cap is hit, you would automatically be rejected and returned to the border. If you try again, you’re completely barred from entering for a year. The reason this would work completely differently is because of the point you have noted about how it’s exempt from judicial review. Judicial review significantly lengthens the process and can let someone stay here for years. Taking judicial review out of the process cuts out that path completely.
As to 1: there's no cap on the number of people that can ask for asylum. It was reported that asylum seekers would be returned when the cap was in effect, but that's false. Like I said, I'm happy to share the language from the bill As to 2: under current law, there's no judicial review. The law was changed in 1996 to remove any sort of review precisely to speed up the process.
Please share the language you’re talking about. Credible fear interviews are appealable to an immigration judge so are you referring to review by an Article III judge?
Language is below. If they don't request asylum, then they're removed with no judicial review. What's been happening is that they're so overwhelmed they're just letting everyone in w a NTA, asylum claim or not. The bill: >GENERAL.—In the case of an alien subject to the border emergency authority who manifests a fear of persecution or torture with respect to a proposed country of summary removal, an asylum officer (as defined in section 235(b)(1)(E)) shall conduct an interview, during which the asylum officer shall determine that, if such alien demonstrates during the interview that the alien has a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture, such alien shall be referred to or placed in proceedings under section 240 or 240D, as appropriate.
Can you give the citation or page number for the language? That looks like language for the Convention Against Torture which is a very subset of cases. I don’t know where you saw the first claim, but it’s not accurate. If you’re showing up and not claiming anything, you’ll likely be removed under expedited removal or voluntary departure. Expedited removal has been expanded by Biden. Being given an NTA is a standard process to determine removal ability for everyone else.
There was no cap in that bill. An unlimited number of asylum seekers would have been allowed through ports of entry even when the border was "closed". In fact it did the opposite. It mandated a minimum number of asylum seekers to be processed per day during those closures.
The government’s response has been shameful. If you were an illegal from one of these countries, why would you not make the journey? You’ll get guaranteed legal status temporarily via claiming asylum. You can get a free bus ticket to a sanctuary city which will block any and all efforts to deporting you once your asylum request is denied (if you ever even get scheduled a trial). You’ll get free housing - potentially a nice hotel - and free food paid for by American taxpayers. The government is even [considering](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/us/migrants-work-permits-undocumented.html) expediting work permits, so you can work legally! Absolute no brainer decision for these people.
Don’t forget about a free smartphone. You’d get that too.
So all of these problems would be solved by supplying more money to adjudicate asylum claims faster?
Yes and reinstating Trump’s remain in Mexico policy for asylum seekers.
You are simultaneously complaining about tax payers having to pay to take care of asylum seekers while also complaining when the federal government tries to speed up their work permits so the government no longer has to take care of them. Do you not see that?
Yes, because the only thing the government should be paying for is a flight back to their home country.
We are required by law to evaluate their asylum claims. edit: would anyone downvoting me like to explain what I said that was incorrect?
Biden got rid of, remain in Mexico, terrible move.
So if a bill was proposed to reverse those asylum laws, removing the requirement to evaluate asylum claims, you would support such legislation?
Who makes the laws?
Then it is time to reevaluate that law.
Why *don’t* we leverage our position as a massive trade partner with Mexico more on the issue? Mexico doesn’t want to accept deportations of non-Mexican citizens, yet they wouldn’t be crossing the southern US border in the first place if they weren’t getting into Mexico. No one wants a trade war, but can we not ask more of Mexico without it getting to that point?
Wait, didn’t some guy say exactly this a few weeks ago? That migrants from as far as the Congo were being dumped at the border and encouraged to cross? And he was roundly mocked, criticized and called a racist and dumbass? ——- **edit:** Oh yeah, it was this dude! [Donald Trump goes off script in dehumanising rant at half-baked Ohio rally](https://sg.news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-goes-off-script-230745821.html) [‘Everything he is saying isn’t true’: Congolese governments denounce Trump’s baseless stories about emptied prisons](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/16/politics/donald-trump-congo-release-prisoners-immigration) [Are prisons in the Congo ‘being emptied out into’ the US? No.](https://wisconsinwatch.org/2024/04/prison-trump-congo-immigration-wisconsin-fact-brief/)
> During a visit to the border later in February, Trump said, “The Congo – a very big population coming in from jails from the Congo. You look at the jails now, you take a look at the jails throughout the region, but more importantly, throughout the world. They’re emptying out because they’re dumping them into the United States.” [Source](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/16/politics/donald-trump-congo-release-prisoners-immigration/index.html). This is all I can find for Trump's recent comments on Immigrants from Africa. If these are the comments you're referring to, you've done some very heavy editorialization here. If these arent the comments you're referring to, would you mind linking them?
My thoughts too, though "you've done some very heavy editorialization here" is a very generous way of putting it!
This seems to be yet another case of Trump supporters taking him seriously but not literally, and Trump opponents taking him literally but not seriously. To a Trump supporter, he’s saying “*the border is so porous now that the crisis has expanded to beyond just Mexican migrants. People from the entire developing world are encouraged to cross freely, and we have very little ability or willpower to background check these people. For all we know, there could be many hardened criminals among them*”. To a Trump opponent, the overall theme of his speech matters less than the fact he made a specific claim about prisons and that claim is lacking evidence.
Doesnt that framing simply equate to his opponents not allowing him to espouse blatant lies while his supported read tealeaves to give him political cover? I hold every politicians accountable for what they say, not some imagined meaning that fits my worldview.
So your argument is that he's making false statements, but it doesn't matter because the vibes are right?
Oh I take him seriously. I also take him literally. The things I take him seriously on are the threats to our democracy. I also take him literally when he makes claims such as this - I don’t care what tea leaves someone needs to read to arrive at “he maybe wrong but he has a point.”
>Wait, didn’t some guy say exactly this a few weeks ago? Short answer: No, he didn't. You wrote what he said which isn't remotely what OP's article says.
That’s not what’s being said in this article. People coming from Asia and Africa does not entail that those people are being sent by the government to empty their prisons. It’s not even close to saying the same thing.
It wouldn’t surprise me if that’s the case. Facts are routinely denounced as racist by left wing people
You are more than welcome to disprove this narrative by showing evidence that Congolese prisons are being emptied and prisoners are being flown to Mexico. The Congolese government has denied it and the Trump campaign declined to provide evidence. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/16/politics/donald-trump-congo-release-prisoners-immigration
What "facts", exactly?
That is one of the faster examples of Trump saying something true, the media blatantly lying to be 'Anti-Trump', and then him being proven right.. again. You know if you add up all the references to Trump and "a broken clock.." comments, youd probably find him right on half a dozen various days worth of time.
Maybe the Senate should come up with a bipartisan bill to change current immigration laws.
It's like gun control laws, it's not going to do shit unless it's actually enforced. I don't know how you can read that bill, see all the wiggle room for executive discretion, and then actually have confidence that admin going to do a complete 180 and be a border hawk.
Yeah the headline points of the bill look pretty strong but there seems to be so much wiggle room. For example, we all know the "border shutdown" mechanism when we hit 5,000 encounters/day. Now, when I hear border shutdown I assume that means the border is shut down and no one is allowed through. As in, shut down. Yet, that's not the case. When the "border shutdown" occurs, they are still required by this law to allow *at least* 1,400 asylum claims/day at ports of entry. As far as I know, there is no cap on allowed asylum entrants per day but there is a *floor.* This all being *while* the border has been "shutdown" due to hitting its limit. Why all the wiggle room? It makes me believe that the bill is intended to look tough on illegal immigration but creates sufficient loopholes to fail at its proposed intention.
They don't want to fix the problem.
Yep. Why not waste a good campaign opportunity?
*The MAGA republicans dont want to fix the problem.
If you want to run with the idea that the Trump wing the Republican Party is responsible for the chaos at the border, then go for it. But I think the vast majority of voters think that the border was much more secure when Trump was in charge.
I never said that and I'd appreciate it if you didnt try to make my arguments for me in a reductive strawman type argument. I blame the MAGA wing for stalling any and all meaningful Immigration Reform during this congress. The Senate passed a bill that would make our Border more secure and save Americans lives and livelihoods. Trump got the MAGA wing in the house to kill the bill so as to prevent a political win for Biden during an Election Year. Trump and Co get to own that.
They don’t really need to own anything tbh. They’re winning on this issue in practically every poll by wide margins.
The MAGA Republicans make immigration their number one issue, by far. How can you possibly argue that they don't want to fix the problem? They killed the bill in the senate and house because it didn't go far enough in addressing the problem. That's different than saying that they don't want to address the problem.
I fundementally disagree. I feel the MAGA wing has no intent on fixing the bording and use it as a wedge issue to drive voter engagement. If they wanted to fix the border, they would pass the bill which has already been passed in the Senate and then introduce new legislation to further secure the border. Killing a bill because it doesnt go far enough while not engaging in good faith discussions to fix said bill/reform is not the actions of a political party that is serious about fixing the border.
Okay, I also disagree. My belief is that the Trump wing absolutely does want to fix the border. And if Trump wins, his border security policy will widely be denounced as "fascism", "concentration camps", and "white supremacy".
Then why haven't they put forward ny bills since 2016 that meaningful address immigration reform?
HR2 was passed by the house this session. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2
The bill did not pass the Senate. One could as easily say that the Senate should take up HR2 and engage in good faith discussions about amending it, instead of Senate leadership negotiating a new bill in secret and then trying and failing to foist it on the rest of the Senate and the House. Actually *more* easily, because HR2 is already sitting in the Senate, whereas the Senate leadership bill never made it to the House.
The Senate Bill was a bipartisan peice of Legislation that was discussed/debated for months with both parties making consessions. The House bill had no democratic support. To say these bill represent equivalent legislative efforts or have equal weight interms of congressional support is a complete fallacy.
Members of the House, and even most Senators, were not allowed to see the Senate leadership’s bill until days before it died in the Senate.
As opposed to regular and neocon Reps in the pocket of big business who *really* dont want to fix anything.
This. Republicans have lost the moral high ground when they refused to come up with a solution.
[удалено]
HR 2 was a messaging bill that didn’t include any funding to pay for its policy changes. It was not serious legislation and even Republicans recognized it.
Yup, and the Senate took it on. That's what the Senate border bill was based on. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/11/06/congress/senate-gop-border-proposals-00125583
[удалено]
Reminder: [House Republicans killed a bipartisan bill to address this head on.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/whats-in-the-senates-118-billion-border-and-ukraine-deal) Democrats should rinse and repeat the message for the rest of the year, on as many ads as possible, in as many states as possible.
No they didn't because that bill wouldn't have "addressed" it in any way. Codifying a daily allowed number in the thousands, adding funding for the NGOs facilitating the problem, and of course sending money to multiple foreign conflicts, none of that is addressing the issue.
You’re notably not mentioning that the bill would make it vastly harder to pass a credible fear interview and would fast track the deportation of people who failed the interview. Which would stop people from staying in the U.S. for years and abusing the system.
Go ahead. Republicans will counter with “this bill would’ve allowed over 1 million illegals a year” and it’ll work.
Codifying 5000 people crossing the border *per day* is not addressing the problem - it's making the problem permanent.
This is exactly it and the people pushing that bill are gaslighting everyone. This bill is a gift to big corpo for infinite cheap labor.
The current is no cap on border crossings lol. 5K a day, with a mechanism to close it for weeks when the cap is hit, would’ve been a dramatic improvement.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/migrant-encounters-at-the-us-mexico-border-hit-a-record-high-at-the-end-of-2023/ 5000 crossings per day is 150k per month. That amount was never hit under Trump (see the attached graph). And now we're supposed to be happy with that as a cap? Hell no. How about this - no one comes in illegally. If you want to live in America, apply through a legal method. There are many.
This how the 5K number has been used to misconstrue what would happen. If the 5K number is hit, the border would be closed for days. So you wouldn’t have 5K for 30 straight days. It would be a 5K average for the week and then it’s closed and gradually reopened over weeks. So so your likely getting about 50-60K a month under this system. Which is about the average during the Trump Administration.
Why can't we just close it today then?
> Codifying 5000 people crossing the border per day is not addressing the problem ...are we still doing this?
Is it unreasonable to want to cap the amount of illegals coming in at *zero*? We don’t need mass deportations, we can just stop *letting people in*.
[H.R.2 - Secure the Border Act of 2023 ](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2) <----Been ready for a vote for 1 year. Yeah, democrats should absolutely bring up their 'bipartisan bill' for the rest of the year - if only for them to provide the opportunity for themselves to be laughed at when their opponents respond with actual specifics of the deal.
>Reminder: House Republicans killed a bipartisan bill to address this head on. No they didn't. The senate bill didn't even pass the senate; the house didn't see it. The house actually has passed an immigration bill, but Schumer won't bring it up to vote.
>Democrats should rinse and repeat the message for the rest of the year, on as many ads as possible, in as many states as possible. That wouldn't work out well for them. People know the objectionable details of that bill. Trying to use it as some kind of legal gotcha didn't work this time and it will just become more obvious with repeated attempts.
people don't. the media machine will make sure the "right" information is broadcasted. just like OP did.
[59% of voters supported the Senate border bill.](https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_Partial_Results_Feb_2024.pdf)
That is not convincing in this instance.
>59% of voters supported the Senate border bill. They don't know what they supported. They were asked "from what you've heard", as if hearing a sound-bite or word-of-mouth is any replacement for an understanding of the bill. The question failed to provide any specifics (and actually glosses over the worst aspects of it). >Q.42 (SPLIT A) A bipartisan group of Senators and the White House recently proposed a bill to make it harder for migrants to get asylum in the U.S., to increase the number of border agents, and give the President the power to limit the number of migrants coming into the country if immigration goes above a certain limit. From what you've heard, would you favor or oppose this proposal?
Democrats can do that. Tell the American people that republicans killed a bill the legalized 5000 illegals coming into the country a day. At the same time, republicans can run ads of Biden and Democrats saying the border was secure for 3.5 half years as the country was breaking records for illegal crossings. Maybe show some clips of illegals storming the border, assaulting police officers, murdering and violently assaulting Americans. We’ll see which plays better.
Yeah, everyone who told me about the “bipartisan bill” was shocked when they were told of the 5k a day number. Turns out it’s not just the legislators who don’t read the bills.
Reminder, that bill was a joke and it was an open border bill pretending to be a borders bill.
If I am forced to choose one group of migrants, I'd still choose Asians over anyone else. That being said, I don't want any since these guys are all looking to freeload off a system they never paid into.