Should the federal government send aid to cities for migrants ?

WTF are you talking about? Do you understand the significant distinction between a right and a privilege in our legal system/Republic? It’s only one the pillars of our society, so take your time here.

once again, Asylum is a privilege. End of story.

 

I would ask why you are so pedantic about something so frivolous, but I think your occupation is a giveaway there. The distinction you are trying to make means nothing. Guns are a right so people can buy them, Asylum is a right, so if their claim is accepted they get to live here no matter what you say is their privilege. End of story.

 

Being granted asylum is a privilege. Requesting asylum is a right that anyone can ask for. And once asylum is requested, the person asking is entitled to a hearing to determine whether or not they meet asylum requirements. During this period, the person seeking asylum is legally permitted to remain in the US while awaiting their hearing.

These people awaiting their hearing should be granted work permits. If they can help themselves and work, then there is less reason for the government to support these people while they are legally in the country, waiting for their hearing.

For that matter, we should grant work permits to undocumented persons already here, working, and have no other legal issues other than being undocumented. Again, what good comes from spending billions on deporting people that would cause a massive downturn in GDP, while also causing significant inflation? Who benefits? If nobody benefits from a law, why enforce it, especially when we can change it, and have it benefit nearly everybody.

 

Well this is my first time posting about this but anyhow, only called what they wanted to be called.

Despite New York City’s ‘sanctuary city” status, Eric Adams hints at cooperation with immigration officials

New York City is one of several throughout the state and country classified as a “sanctuary city,” meaning that local law enforcement generally won’t cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But it’s not a legal term, and definitions vary by jurisdiction.

Anyone crossing illegally since Title 42 expired is here legally somehow? Show me the law that says they are legally here. Right now we are just not enforcing the laws we have.

 

They are here legally if they have requested asylum and have not had a case adjudicated against them already.

 

everyone on this message Board is now dumber for reading your post. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. The fact that you are commingling a privilege and a right explains a lot about some of your other posts. You probably should do some reading on the subject and educate yourself. This is simple civics.

 

the point still is these cities invited people, whether legally seeking asylum or being here illegally to come there, that they would be protected, n ow they cannot afford to do anything for them so they cry to the federal government to pay,too bad, let them figure it out, my taxes should not go to them.

 

the solution is not too create an incentive or atmosphere to allow people to linger in our country while Their claims are being adjudicated. That is our current system, and it is a complete failure. The solution is to adjudicate their claim for asylum immediately upon entry. They should remain in custody until they have a hearing date which should occur within 72 hours of their arrival. Much cheaper to hire judges than to deal with all of the issues that arise out of too many immigrants. hell, the best solution is to have a 24 hour adjudication hall where people are brought right to that center and you have three judges per courtroom, rotating in and out every eight hours.

 

I understand the distinction, but they way you are applying "privilege" is meaningless. Being granted asylum is a privilege ... ok, so what?

 

enforcing our immigration laws benefits, the entire country, including the immigrants. The executive branch, which is charged with enforcing our laws, should not be rewriting our laws by refusing to enforce them. Congress passes the laws, and the executive branch should be doing its job and enforcing them.

 

The way I am applying privilege is not meaningless. Again, it is the very foundation of our society. You have rights and you have privileges. They are very different. You, as an American citizen, really need to understand that distinction. If you don’t educate yourself, you will lose your right, because the government will take them away from you. Not by force, but by merely asking you to give them up in such a way that you think you have no choice.

 

Or...let them work...pay taxes...buy stuff...pay more taxes...have kids...who will eventually work...pay taxes...buy stuff...pay more taxes...have kids...etc. Perhaps the best solution is not spend all of our time and effort pretending like we can centrally plan how many people the economy needs to function. Nah, we need big government to tell us all that.

 

I didn't ask for a 3rd grade civics lesson, I asked what is so meaningful about how being granted asylum is a "privilege." So what? What point are you trying to make here by saying that, because I can t see it.

 

or, perhaps we should only allow those people in the country that provide a benefits to our country, and keep those who do not provide a benefit out. Perhaps, we should enforce our immigration laws which give us control of our border, just like every other country on this big blue planet. What you are suggesting is ridiculous. No other country behaves in the manner in which you are asking this country to behave. Without borders, we don’t have a country.

 

our country has retained the right to say “no”

if the immigrant doesn’t like it, too bad.

Do you get it now?

 

First, so all 2 million or so just this year were all given asylum-seeking status once captured and released?

Also, here is something on that:

Illegal Migrants Who Apply for Asylum Are Still Here Illegally
A lot of legal points in this breakdown. I can't share any insight since I know very little about this topic.

 

Not really, no. Are you saying we should yank asylum for people just because we feel like it or change our minds? Like we all have to obey the law, pay taxes, etc or there are consequences that part I do understand, we can deport non-citizens who violate laws, or refuse to follow the rules set out to them, etc.

 

Okay, who provides "benefits?" You want the government centrally deciding who provides benefit? Everybody provides some version of "benefit."

You know what country behaved like I suggested for most of its existence? This one. Indeed, that is the thing that actually made it exceptional.

 

I mean, if they were released, yes (unless they were wrongfully detained in the first place for some reason). That is how they were released.

I think this particular line about sums up the absurdity of the claims in that piece:

 

Good summary in the link you provided. Shows how stupid our immigration system is.