|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 12 2019 13:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 13:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 12 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 12:34 Gahlo wrote:On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities.
You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum.
So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability. Then make it easier to apply for asylum trough the official channels instead of having to backdoor it. But wait, Republicans don't want that to happen. Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries. And you don't want this talking point, because showing up unannounced at the border is an "official channel." If asylum seekers were willing to stay in their home countries and shuffle paperwork they wouldn't be asylum seekers in the first place. A) that is not always true, but mostly true. it is the way the law works right now, however. B) strange how people thought to reply that to my post, in which I allude to that fact (since it is true in general), and not the one I responded to. edit: I assume Gahlo meant apply from the home country because I don't know else he could possibly mean. if not my bad.
Confusion seems to be that you're wrong about the official way to apply for asylum. You literally have to be inside the US or at a port of entry to apply for asylum.
You seem to be confusing it with refugee status.
|
On February 12 2019 14:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 13:36 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 13:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 12 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 12:34 Gahlo wrote:On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away.
and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families.
But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability. Then make it easier to apply for asylum trough the official channels instead of having to backdoor it. But wait, Republicans don't want that to happen. Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries. And you don't want this talking point, because showing up unannounced at the border is an "official channel." If asylum seekers were willing to stay in their home countries and shuffle paperwork they wouldn't be asylum seekers in the first place. A) that is not always true, but mostly true. it is the way the law works right now, however.
B) strange how people thought to reply that to my post, in which I allude to that fact (since it is true in general), and not the one I responded to. edit: I assume Gahlo meant apply from the home country because I don't know else he could possibly mean. if not my bad. Confusion seems to be that you're wrong about the official way to apply for asylum. You literally have to be inside the US or at a port of entry to apply for asylum. You seem to be confusing it with refugee status.
look at the part I bolded. I am aware that's how it works, I was attempting to interpret Gahlo's comment.
|
On February 12 2019 15:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 14:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 12 2019 13:36 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 13:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 12 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 12:34 Gahlo wrote:On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum.
There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability. Then make it easier to apply for asylum trough the official channels instead of having to backdoor it. But wait, Republicans don't want that to happen. Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries. And you don't want this talking point, because showing up unannounced at the border is an "official channel." If asylum seekers were willing to stay in their home countries and shuffle paperwork they wouldn't be asylum seekers in the first place. A) that is not always true, but mostly true. it is the way the law works right now, however.
B) strange how people thought to reply that to my post, in which I allude to that fact (since it is true in general), and not the one I responded to. edit: I assume Gahlo meant apply from the home country because I don't know else he could possibly mean. if not my bad. Confusion seems to be that you're wrong about the official way to apply for asylum. You literally have to be inside the US or at a port of entry to apply for asylum. You seem to be confusing it with refugee status. look at the part I bolded. I am aware that's how it works, I was attempting to interpret Gahlo's comment.
Well then you're explaining yourself very poorly, because:
Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries.
Is actually a logical impossibility. "Asylum seeker" and "apply from their home country" is completely contradictory.
|
On February 12 2019 15:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 15:22 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 14:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 12 2019 13:36 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 13:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 12 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 12:34 Gahlo wrote:On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability. Then make it easier to apply for asylum trough the official channels instead of having to backdoor it. But wait, Republicans don't want that to happen. Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries. And you don't want this talking point, because showing up unannounced at the border is an "official channel." If asylum seekers were willing to stay in their home countries and shuffle paperwork they wouldn't be asylum seekers in the first place. A) that is not always true, but mostly true. it is the way the law works right now, however.
B) strange how people thought to reply that to my post, in which I allude to that fact (since it is true in general), and not the one I responded to. edit: I assume Gahlo meant apply from the home country because I don't know else he could possibly mean. if not my bad. Confusion seems to be that you're wrong about the official way to apply for asylum. You literally have to be inside the US or at a port of entry to apply for asylum. You seem to be confusing it with refugee status. look at the part I bolded. I am aware that's how it works, I was attempting to interpret Gahlo's comment. Well then you're explaining yourself very poorly, because: Is actually a logical impossibility. "Asylum seeker" and "apply from their home country" is completely contradictory.
I don't see how those are opposed as a matter of logic, just of law. I'm sure we are using different definitions. And I think I get the benefit of the doubt on that because I acknowledged the law as it is in the post you quoted. Keep it up. Nonetheless I'm so glad that once again this is the post that gets the responses. Good as always.
in fact, if I was confusing it with refugee status I most certainly would NOT have made that comment, because refugee status is something that currently exists.
edit: I made a post with content that went ignored and never posted in the blog, so that's funny.
|
Again, glad to see the closing of the blog has brought back all the people who post without saying anything.
|
On February 12 2019 15:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Again, glad to see the closing of the blog has brought back all the people who post without saying anything.
Pretty sure they never left. Repeating talking points about how bad trump is isn't new content.
|
On February 12 2019 15:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 15:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Again, glad to see the closing of the blog has brought back all the people who post without saying anything. Pretty sure they never left. Repeating talking points about how bad trump is isn't new content.
I don't know if it's repeating if Trump finds new ways to impress every week.
|
On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2019 02:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Dude, can you put more effort into these? I get it that you dislike immigration of any kind, but the whole "open borders" is kinda lazy at this point. No one buys into this argument, including you.
[quote]
WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE WITH THIS, YOU KNOW IT IS BULLSHIT!?!?!?!?! I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis.
What I was asking was how the US handled deporting asylum seekers who have been denied asylum, refuse to leave and whose country of origin does not want them back as this is a very real problem in Europe (where the magnitude is somewhat underreported due to asylum seekers move from country to country). This might simply be a non-issue in the states, but I simply don't know.
|
On February 12 2019 15:43 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 15:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 12 2019 15:22 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 14:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 12 2019 13:36 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 13:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 12 2019 12:56 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 12:34 Gahlo wrote:On February 12 2019 12:23 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings.
The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. You are missing so many things here, but to start with, one of the problem with the way asylum works is that as family units flood over the border, often times directed by cartels, that ties up border agents where the cartels traffic goods and persons elsewhere. This is a common and well known tactic, but the BP has to let them go because they have to deal with the large, maybe >100 persons groups. Also, when we had lots of illegal immigration before, many of them were Mexican nationals and could simply be turned around, now with so many central Americans they have to be detained and transported away. It's a massive strain on resources. but don't worry, the Democrats will give Trump 55 miles of wall but also have the number beds cut by over 15%. This is lunacy. I'm still waiting for one good reason the the people so concerned with the health and safety of migrants are arguing for LESS capability. Then make it easier to apply for asylum trough the official channels instead of having to backdoor it. But wait, Republicans don't want that to happen. Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries. And you don't want this talking point, because showing up unannounced at the border is an "official channel." If asylum seekers were willing to stay in their home countries and shuffle paperwork they wouldn't be asylum seekers in the first place. A) that is not always true, but mostly true. it is the way the law works right now, however.
B) strange how people thought to reply that to my post, in which I allude to that fact (since it is true in general), and not the one I responded to. edit: I assume Gahlo meant apply from the home country because I don't know else he could possibly mean. if not my bad. Confusion seems to be that you're wrong about the official way to apply for asylum. You literally have to be inside the US or at a port of entry to apply for asylum. You seem to be confusing it with refugee status. look at the part I bolded. I am aware that's how it works, I was attempting to interpret Gahlo's comment. Well then you're explaining yourself very poorly, because: Actually the GOP wants asylum seekers to apply from their home countries. Is actually a logical impossibility. "Asylum seeker" and "apply from their home country" is completely contradictory. I don't see how those are opposed as a matter of logic, just of law. I'm sure we are using different definitions. And I think I get the benefit of the doubt on that because I acknowledged the law as it is in the post you quoted. Keep it up. Nonetheless I'm so glad that once again this is the post that gets the responses. Good as always. in fact, if I was confusing it with refugee status I most certainly would NOT have made that comment, because refugee status is something that currently exists. edit: I made a post with content that went ignored and never posted in the blog, so that's funny.
I still don't see what point you're trying to get at. Both P6 and Gahlo have both said it, the official channel is clogged up, so take the steps to unclog it.
If your point about the GOP wanting asylum seekers to stop being asylum seekers has a better meaning, then please clarify instead of spinning your tires.
|
|
|
Sigh, sounds like the Dems are getting to little in return for allowing Trump to claim a victory.
|
On February 12 2019 19:44 Gorsameth wrote:
Sigh, sounds like the Dems are getting to little in return for allowing Trump to claim a victory.
I'm not sure how Trump could in any way shape or form claim a victory from this. It's much less money than if he had accepted the bipartisan bill from December, and 5% of what he would have gotten had he accepted the DACA bill from last year.
Art of the deal indeed
Edit: Let me rephrase. Of course he's going to claim victory, this is a man who would claim victory after getting knocket out in a boxing match after all. But I doubt people are going to see it the same way
|
On February 12 2019 20:02 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 19:44 Gorsameth wrote:
Sigh, sounds like the Dems are getting to little in return for allowing Trump to claim a victory. I'm not sure how Trump could in any way shape or form claim a victory from this. It's much less money than if he had accepted the bipartisan bill from December, and 5% of what he would have gotten had he accepted the DACA bill from last year. Art of the deal indeed Edit: Let me rephrase. Of course he's going to claim victory, this is a man who would claim victory after getting knocket out in a boxing match after all. But I doubt people are going to see it the same way
Well, his base is going to believe whatever he says. If he says this is the "best deal", it is the best deal. Also, the rest of the republicans are going to sell this as a win, even if they don't believe it, because politics is apparently all about winning, not about running the country.
|
He got "THE WALL" which was a major campaign promise, and democrats didn't get anything really obvious out of it, so of course he can sell it as a victory.
Optics are everything for Trump style politics. Details or actual efficacy don't matter.
This is mostly a nothing for nothing deal, but Trump can claim that he achieved his goal, because his nothing can be described as a wall, while the democrats nothing can't be described as DACA protections.
|
On February 12 2019 20:30 Simberto wrote:
He got "THE WALL" which was a major campaign promise, and democrats didn't get anything really obvious out of it, so of course he can sell it as a victory.
Optics are everything for Trump style politics. Details or actual efficacy don't matter.
This is mostly a nothing for nothing deal, but Trump can claim that he achieved his goal, because his nothing can be described as a wall, while the democrats nothing can't be described as DACA protections.
55 miles of fence is at best 2.8% of a wall, and I'm being generous by equating fence and wall here 
Also, 1.3billion for 55 miles of fence seems absurdly expensive unless that includes personnel for border patrol to guard the fence?
E: it's going to come down to Trump yelling "see, they don't want to give me a wall, but we're building one. VICTORY", and Democrats saying "we didn't give him a single mm of wall. The money is for necessary maintenance of existing infrastructure along the border, and in return we have curbed ICE's power. VICTORY".
And this stupidity will repeat a couple of dozen times over the next few months.
|
On February 12 2019 16:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2019 11:01 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 10:48 Ghostcom wrote:On February 12 2019 06:44 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:35 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 06:14 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 06:09 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:58 Plansix wrote:On February 12 2019 05:51 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I imagine he defines open borders as something other than every single person on the planet being granted free entry to the US, so I want to at least know what he is arguing against. it was semi sarcastic. the idea that the Democrats have a good reason for opposing things like more beds is facially asinine. trying to hamstring law enforcement is not acting on good faith on this issue. you'd think after all we heard about "concentration camps" on the border the Democrats would be all for things like bigger and better accommodations. but nope. Are they hamstringing law enforcement? Or are they telling the administration they don’t have a blank check to detain all 11 million legal immigrants for an unlimited period of time while the tiny number of immigration judges works through the backlog? Because, that is the way I see it. ICE and the administration doesn’t get a blank check. In fact, I bet they could get a lot more immigration judges if they wanted. But they don’t seem to be asking for judges at all. They want a wall. On February 12 2019 05:54 Introvert wrote:On February 12 2019 05:40 Doodsmack wrote:Conservative Twitter has blown up over Ilhan Omar's use of an anti semitic trope. But the below tweet was merely a sherriffs star, and Diane Feinstein sure is sneaky. the image you linked wont work for me, but good on you for turning the story into right wing reaction to her multiple statements instead of her statements themselves. a classic. strangely enough, the dog whistle experts are nowhere to be found. They have been found. It as called the Democratic party leadership. They got on her as fast as they got on Steve King. And unlike King, she apologized. https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/693480995/house-democrats-urge-party-leaders-to-condemn-anti-semitism Yes, you want them to have fewer beds so when they get flooded they must release people into the country. instrqd of having sufficient means to deal with a problem, you'd rather they have yo guess and work under prepared. and this is the moral stance. oh, and by the way, the administration is asking for, and is prob going to get, more immigration judges. they've had that on their wishlist for months. This is a problem created by the administration. We don’t’ need these detention facilities. Asylum seekers can be processed the same way they were before Trump without issue. And illegal immigrants that are caught can be detained until they are deported in existing facilities. You can’t talk about being flooded when the administration is the one decided who gets detained and who doesn’t. There is no reason to detain the number of children they are holding except to try and scare people to not seek asylum. So, yeah, I don’t’ see this as limiting law enforcement at all. This is a waste of tax payers money to abuse asylum seekers. They should just handle the backlog by getting more judges. But they dont' really want them that badly, since they can just lock detained folks up forever. No, over the past few years asylum claims have skyrocketed, it's the new way in. the system wasnt meant for rhis. what really needs changing are the laws, but that some ways away. and I dont think I'm alone here, I shared that poll before (with usual caveats) that 60+ percent would rather we kept the whole family detained than a) let them into the interior or separating families. But we don’t need to keep them detained. Most of them have family in the Us and will attend their asylum hearings. Asylum seekers don’t become illegal immigrants. They are either granted asylum or are deported. The only reason they are being detained is to punish them for seeking asylum. There is no law that need to be changed. This was never a problem. In Europe it is a very real problem as asylum seekers who have been denied asylum and refuse to leave can't be deported if their country of origin do not accept them. Can you elucidate on how the US handles the issue? We electronic track them, the same way we handle house arrest. Most asylum seekers have family or someone in the US they are traveling to, so it is less of a problem. From all the reporting I have read, asylum seekers are the least likely to default at their immigration hearings. The issue of illegal immigration in the US is causes by people overstaying work visas, not asylum seekers. This is why the wall and detention of asylum seekers are so stupid. It’s just a way to create an artificial crisis. What I was asking was how the US handled deporting asylum seekers who have been denied asylum, refuse to leave and whose country of origin does not want them back as this is a very real problem in Europe (where the magnitude is somewhat underreported due to asylum seekers move from country to country). This might simply be a non-issue in the states, but I simply don't know.
I’ve never heard of a problem, so my bet would be that it is a non-issue. Asylum seekers are not much of a problem for the US. They are only a focus for people who don’t want to take in refugees or want to end immigration, both legal and illegal.
|
I also love the delusional idea that asylum seekers should apply on their home country. People so eager to flee their country they will WALK to the US should just hang out and apply at the local embassy that may or may not be accessible. Willing to walk and sleep outside in the elements for weeks. Those people should just wait in their home country and hope we process them fast enough.
|
It shows a total failure to understand what asylum means. It means that you are in mortal danger in your home country for some reason, and that you are fleeing that danger. It means that the situation is very time-sensitive, meaning that you don't have the luxury of waiting for ages for bureaucracy, because people/things want to kill you right now.
Luckily, we have stuff like the UN declaration of human rights to make sure that such people are protected. Sadly, US conservatives don't seem to like that.
|
Nah, he's right.
I can totally see a gay person sitting in Afghanistan at home, a mob with pitchforks and torches at the door, trying to fill out paperwork for the emergency (here's where the difference between asylum seeker and economic immigrant lies, not that i'd expect a "conservative" to grasp that difference) that's threatening his life.
Or a christian for that matter. Wasn't that like a big thing in the US, god, love thy neighbour etc? Ah, got it, only if convenient.
|
Even the term economic migrant is loaded. It is meant to evoke someone that is only coming to the country to increase their wealth. But often reality is the migrant left their country because there is no work to sustain them. And a complete lack of employment doesn’t just exist in a vacuum. There are other risks and problems created by mass unemployment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://goo.gl/images/p8urTt)
