Abbott is trying to kill or injure illegal immigrants coming to Texas

Wow, the gall to cite Madison when trying to claim that immigration is an invasion when he explicitly stated that it was not. To quote him:

 

Supreme Court Rules Texas Must Replace Barbed Wire With Giant Red Carpet
NOGALES — In yet another 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Texas must remove all barbed wire along the border and replace it with a massive, plush red carpet.

"How will migrants be able to get in the country if there's barbed wire in the way?" said a visibly confused Justice Sotomayor. "They might get hurt! An elegant red carpet makes much more sense. It's soft and red and can helpfully point the way to gaps along our border and make our new migrants feel welcome. It says that in the Constitution somewhere. Like, in Section 3 Article B or whatever."

 

Does crossing the border anywhere other than an official checkpoint make you an illegal, even if you are attempting to claim asylum?

 

No. It is a legal form of immigration, regardless of point of entry.

You would only be an illegal immigrant prior to the applying for asylum.

Questions and Answers: Affirmative Asylum Eligibility and Applications | USCIS

 

Thanks for the answer, I think that is craziness that you can enter however you want and within a year claim asylum. Is it just me or does that just sound like one hell of a crazy policy?

 

I think the notion that we want to stop people who want to come here to work during a labor shortage is crazy. It is inflationary and leads to the development of a massive black market.

 

I am not one of those folks that chant "Stop the Flow". I know the need for immigrant labor and know as country we need it. I just think these policies are just crazy. It is obvious that once these asylum seekers have been sent to these other cities, the fact that slowing the flow and making it more orderly should be recognized by everyone and finally it is.

 

We don't need to "slow the flow." We still have substantial labor shortages. The issue is the massive series of laws that we have passed over the last 100 years pretending that the next regulation would stop people from trying to come here. Go back to the simple system that we had: show up, write down your name, do a couple of basic checks (we could do a lot more on these than we used to do without it being too heavy of a burden these days due to technology), and let them come into the country. Let the market determine "the flow."

 

When they do manage to sneak in, just immediately pack 'em up and send them to one of the blue sanctuary cities...problem solved.

 

No way that'll happen because way too many Republicans employ them. Most of their employee pool would vanish.

 

Not surprised. Solving problems is about who gets credit.

“Some GOP lawmakers reportedly interpreted McConnell's assessment of current border negotiations as stepping back from securing an agreement and bowing to Trump's demands to refuse a border deal with Democrats. But on Thursday, other lawmakers told reporters that McConnell was "laying out the quandary."

Senate GOP in 'quandary' over border security, Ukraine aid package: 'Designed not to solve the problem' | Fox News

 

I think that people can set foot anywhere, claim asylum, then are free to enter and stay as long as they are n a queue is a deeply flawed process. It encourages people to enter illegally and claim asylum, most of whom don’t qualify.

IMO there should be multiple points of legal entry, and a process to address those claiming asylum. Perhaps there are limits, perhaps not. Any of those entering illegally should be captured, examined to make sure they are fed and healthy, and escorted back to the other side of the border, with an explanation of how the legal process works.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/25/republican-party-future-trump-save/

Republicans apparently have abandoned a border compromise, including aid to Ukraine and Israel, because Trump opposes it as that might make Biden look good.

 

This.....
I just don't understand how anyone can believe that crossing into the country illegally, then claiming asylum can be accepted.
How many checkpoints do we currently have that migrants can pass through legally and claim asylum?
Coming across wherever it is convenient for them shouldn't necessarily be allowed. As I am reminded every time a border discussion is brought up, they have "walked" thousands of miles, a fence will not stop them, if they are escorted back and told they must go through the line, I think that would slow it dramatically. Same poster often reminds that most of the migrants are decent people just looking for work, if that is case, they don't want to break the law, they will get in the line at the checkpoints.

 

You make a good point. Right now, there is no line to get into. Therefore, there is no benefit for immigrants to get into one. But if we changed the law and allowed for a line, and yes, told immigrants that's the only way we'll accept a claim for an asylum hearing, then once word gets out, that's how immigrants will enter. It would be better for us and better for them.

This would require first, a change in the law. Second, it would require some infrastructure, especially at some of the more remote crossing areas. There is literally nothing on the US side of the Lukeville crossing in Arizona outside a rest stop and a building for BP Agents. Any immigrant showing up at this crossing needs to be bussed to Tucson to be processed.

The problem is there is no motivation to change the law to even help. The Rs have proven that again, they prefer the problem over solutions. It's politically expedient to have border issues, and the only border solution they accept seem to be Trump's draconian policies, which are as ineffective as they are inhumane.

 

I personally don't think the current asylum situation is sustainable but was thinking back the other day to Elian Gonzalez and how angry people were at the prospect of him being returned to his father in Cuba.

 

You all were against the line!!! Because the line was in Mexico, not all over this country and up to a 5-10 year hearing date. I believe the law says you cross illegally you can be deported. If you cross anywhere other that a checkpoint, is that not breaking the law? If you do and get caught, I understood you can't claim asylum and get sent back and have 5 years before you can claim it again. The problem is this administration is not enforcing that law.
Why make new laws when we don't enforce the ones already in place?

 

The "line" in Mexico wasn't a line. It was a humanitarian disaster full of rape, torture, kidnapping, and other inhumane conditions. I fail to see why anyone would advocate a continuance of a policy that would encourage this kind of behavior towards fellow human beings. Maybe if Mexico was more prepared to handle the immigrants on their side of the border, but they clearly are not. We could help Mexico with their infrastructure, but why should we be investing millions to help Mexico?

The law says if you cross and within a year, surrender to Border Patrol with an asylum claim, then your claim will have a hearing. A big part of the issue is a lack of judges to hear each case. Biden has been trying to change this law, as well as hire more judges to hear existing cases. But this is part of the bill that the Rs are blocking because Trump doesn't want Biden to have a "win" on the border because again, politically it's better for there to be a problem at the border for the Rs rather than a solution.

 

I don't believe we can hire enough judges to have 10,000 plus hearings a day. Plus, historically only about 30% get approval. And the humanitarian problem that was happening south of the border is now happening north of the border.

 

You think immigrants staying in the US are being raped, kidnapped, and tortured at the same rate as they were in Mexico? Please link to your proof. Because we know it's not the immigrants committing these crimes. By all accounts, including a report by Trump's own DOJ in 2020 show immigrants commit less violent crime than citizens.