Generally agree except that the Republican base wants an air tight border, which is logistically impossible
Speaker Johnson to House GOP: Senate immigration deal ‘absolutely dead,’ members say | CNN Politics This clown is talking out of both sides of his mouth. MTG and bunch of republicans says he's assured him it's DOA in private, but in public he's making comments like .... “I have talked to former President Trump about this issue at length and he understands that we have a responsibility to do here.” Johnson added, “The president of course, President Trump, wants to secure the country. President Trump is the one that talked about border security before anyone else did. He ran on, as you remember, building the wall. Why? Because he saw this catastrophe coming. He knew that if we did not get control of it, we would be in this situation.”
seems like a good place for this.... https://www.wsj.com/articles/republ...-rot-within-desantis-tim-scott-haley-21bb12d6 Meatball Ron has done it. Lyin’ Ted did it years ago. Little Marco too. Maybe Birdbrain will prove to have more cojones than that growing parade of men who once asked us to believe they were leaders but turned out to be sycophants. They’ve all endured ritual humiliation at the hands of their master and then bowed and scraped for some small scrap of recognition from him. Some do it grudgingly at first, qualifiedly, until they realize that only complete obeisance will do for Donald Trump. These days they know the safest form of submission is unconditional. The former president will brook nothing but abject fealty, so just get straight to your knees and kiss the ring. Say this for Tim Scott: At least he understands it’s all-in or nothing at all. There can have been few sadder displays of human abasement than Mr. Scott’s performance last week. The South Carolina senator rightly likes to make much of his family’s ascent from sharecropper to Congress in a couple of generations. I couldn’t help but wonder what his grandfather would have made of his stepping awkwardly forward at Mr. Trump’s New Hampshire victory party to say the reason he endorsed the former president rather than the South Carolina governor who appointed him to his seat was that “I just love you.” The saddest thing is that we all know this Faustian bargain is no such thing. At least Dr. Faustus got 24 years of magic and mischief for his soul. These guys get what? A year or two of not being insulted by the master? A brief respite from the venom of Trump cult members before they get discarded along with everyone else?
When I say open borders, IMO if you can step foot in the US, declare asylum and you are required to be allowed to stay, and likely never to leave, that’s effectively open borders. Just because Republicans support these measures doesn’t mean they are bad. You and I are just not going to agree. I don’t think we can assimilate several million every year. While you may like massive uncontrolled immigration, most Americans don’t and inaction will help to put Trump back in office.
That's not open borders. Those people can be criminally charged. They can be held in immigration detention (including in jails and prisons). And they can be put into expedited removal. Hell, most of them end up being forced to leave. No, they're bad because they're stupid, harmful policies. Allowing the Executive to "shut down" the border to asylum seekers based on the number of people coming will only encourage people to try and sneak into the country. We already saw what a disaster Title 42 was. Demanding that asylum cases be resolved within six months is foolish when there isn't the infrastructure to make that happen. Trying to force it to happen will lead to people facing torture and death back home not receiving due process. Removing the Executive's ability to release people on parole when we lack the capacity to safely detain people will lead to harm. It will force DHS to partner with jails and prisons, where asylum seekers will suffer abuse. (And guess who has to pay for the government to detain these harmless people?) We're already seeing that happen as things stand now, and this will only make it worse: Activists call for Baker County jail to be shut down over alleged mistreatment of immigrant detainees I could swallow some of this bullshit if we were getting something in return, like a path to citizenship and legal status for the dreamers. But we're getting nothing. I like good policy, regardless of your demagoguery. There are solutions that can enhance border security, reform the asylum system (including fixing broken parts), provide a secure process that harmonizes labor demand and supply, and treat people with decency. The Republicans aren't pursuing that policy, and the Democrats are all too happy to cave to the Republicans rather than fight for what's right.
Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? The bill is a bipartisan effort. I think Biden and his advisors have played it brilliantly. They know immigration is a big issue, and that the voters in both parties think Biden has been too soft on it. By supporting this bipartisan effort, he can claim he has got tough on it, secure in the knowledge the spineless.GOP, cowered by Trump, won't support it, allowing him to thereby switch the tables. I'm of the opinion this will help Biden more with the crucial independent and undecided voters than it will hurt him with the democratic ones.
We do not have unlimted capacity to take in every person in the world who wants to be here. If you start with that, everything else follows.
The biggest problem is not enough judges to hear asylum claims. That was a concern years ago, and Congress has refused to address it. Now, we really have no choice but to require asylum seekers to wait in the first country they entered after leaving their home country until their claims can be heard.
This is a non-response. Let me know when you want to actually talk border and immigration policy. I'm game. But you're going to have to do more than throw out Republican talking points.
No, it is relevant. If you start with that assertion, it follows there needs to be a process to limit the amount of immigration. From what I understand Canada has a pretty good system. A logical process that focuses primarily on filling needs to their economy, not whoever steps foot in the US and declares asylum gets to stay.
By all means, fund and hire more judges. But the system is now kind of a joke. Most people who declare asylum don’t really qualify for asylum. If you are having to toss back out 80% of what comes in, that still is a faulty process. There needs to be some sort of better filter up front. A more defined process confined to only qualified points of entry plus online application in advance would help, and certainly more judges.
How is it relevant? Who has argued for open borders or a system that places no limitations on immigration? Canada's asylum rules are similar to ours. Their system looks better because we're standing between them and Central/South America. Since we're a safe third country, they don't have to accept asylum seekers who cross the U.S.-Canada border.
The Canadian guest worker system also simple and better. If Canadian employers can show open positions that aren't being filled by citizens, they are allowed to hire immigrants.
From various sources, these are the numbers. Let me know if you have different information. - Around 70% of people requesting asylum pass the initial “credible fear” criteria, which allows them to stay in the US and file for asylum. Total border apprehensions are around 2 million. - about 40% of the above don’t ever file for asylum, the other 60% do. The 60% that do amount to about 800,000 in most recent year. - about 30-40% that go through the application process and get to court are approved. - the amount approved was around 25,000 in a recent year - there is a backlog of about 2 million. - the backlog is 3 years or 10 years depending on which agency. - 1.3 million have deportation orders but have not left yet.
Doing some math - if 25000 are approved, at a 40% approval rate that would be about 60,000 processed. We had 800,000 asylum applications. 800/60 means we would need approximately 12 times the judges (and other personnel ) to get to a steady state. If you wanted to get through the 2 million backlog in a few years you’d need another factor of 12. So we need 25 times the number of judges. There are around 1500 judges and asylum officers. So that means we would need about 37,500. Now I see why you support this. Legal system employment act.
The problem is intractable. When all is said and done we should recognize that in the long run, considering the scope of human history, it will be impossible to halt human migration. This is because there is one, just one, imperative among all living things: to survive in order to procreate and ensure the survival of the species. The only thing that might temporarily halt migration is to be found in the East German solution under Communism: build a wall; cap it with razor wire; mine the land on the immigrant side of the wall; install watch towers and spotlights every 100 yards or so; and shoot to kill every human who tries to enter. No sane human supports this. I'm not saying to simply let everyone in. Rather, I'm saying most all of them will get here eventually. Just not in the lifetime of anyone currently living.
