"Concentration Camps"?
Yesterday, AOC and a group of members of the Congress visited some migrant camp facilities. They denounced the conditions they saw. Today, they were called liars by GOP members, FOX, Limbaugh & co, and even some right-wing pastors.
But tonight the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General released a report (and photos). According to the report:
-Detention facilities in South Texas were subjected to "serious overcrowding" and prolonged detention.
-Photos of migrants in five Rio Grande Valley facilities show many packed into crowded standing-room-only cells and behind fences. Others are shown sleeping on the floor with aluminum blankets.
-At three facilities, government auditors said they observed children lacking full access to showers and a change of clothes. Some detainees were given wet-wipes in lieu of showers and many adults hadn't showered despite being held for as long as a month.
-At two facilities, inspectors said children were not provided hot meals until the week they arrived. Around 3,400 people had been held longer than the 72 hours generally permitted under Customs and Border Protection standards. Of the 2,669 children detained by the Border Patrol, 826 had been held longer than 72 hours.
-More than 50 children under the age of 7 were waiting to be moved to long-term facilities, the report said. A senior manager at one facility called the situation "a ticking time bomb."
Islandbites, are you aware that your point is applicable to Pres. Obama's administration? I believe your sincerity, but does it matter to you that this is not a new issue?
I too abhor these conditions, but I do not place them at Pres. Trump's doorstep.
I truly believe that this is being projected as a Trump criticism when it was in fact first occurring under the Obama administration.
Does that make a difference to you?
It is obvious the border detention facilities are overwhelmed but do you lay that solely at Pres. Trump's feet?
If we looke back to previous forum comments would we find your combinations of Pres. Obama's administration for these conditions?
To be clear, these conditions are not new. They are not solely the responsibility of the Trump administration and to paint them so is disingenuous.
GAI could say "I decline to make Pres. Trump a focus point of every conversation." but I won't.
Yes, even if that's not entirely true. That's not the point anyway.
It does not make a difference to me. More importantly, I doubt it makes a difference to them. And I don't think they care who do I (or you) blame.
I don't know if you'll find comments. But who cares? Well, maybe you. But then again, who cares (no offence).
There is a more important issue. (And that wasn't the point anyway. I didn't even mentioned Trump)
Salud!It's the same old, "But Obama did it" excuse, IB. They won't address when the Cons had all 3 branches of Govt. and did nothing at all.
You are right, I made an assumption. And that assumption prompted me to introduce Trump into the thread. Maybe I was wrong.
What do you think should be done to fix this?
GATake the men and put them to work on the wall and repairing our infrastructure. Give them a decent wage and quit trying to finance something that is intangible.
Make them build houses for themselves and their families, establish towns out in the desert where it is still livable and educate them in English. That's just for openers.
That's what FDR did to come out of the depression. He had CC camps that gave us our national parks and WPA to improve our infrastructure. He put millions of people to work and gave them a purpose.
But when a government is hung up on an "us and them mentality", none of that is possible. Trump and Stephen Miller are racist, pure and simple. And CC camps and WPA are social programs...God forbid!!!This seems not only self defeating, but expensive almost beyond comprehension.
First, it will most definitely encourage more of the same; an unending stream of people that we must support.
Second, none of these people have the skills to do what you are wanting them to do. No heavy equipment operators, no one familiar with construction requirements and methods even for housing. Before they can do anything at all they must be trained; I assume you would train any foreign national that can get into the country with a usable skill, doubling the cost of any project we might set out to accomplish whether a new bridge or the wall.
Where do you suggest we get the billions (trillions?) of dollars to accomplish this? Soak "the rich" yet again?
Finally, FDR (and others) did indeed buy our way out of a depression/recession...by providing jobs to Americans and improve our nation at the same time. A method that works, but you're proposing to hire foreign labor to do it and the does not seem to offer anything to Americans at all. Except a giant bill far in excess of the value received.
Declaring an "us and them mentality", coupled with a claim of racism, because we don't try and support the world lends no credence to your argument.I see that Wilderness has addressed several aspects of your proposal so I will just ask about one; would you then give those workers and families Green Cards or a path to citizenship? I can't imagine you would have them build houses and towns and then deport them if their asylum requests failed.
My perception is that the bulk of detainees are women and children - very few able-bodied men, (relatively speaking). So that firest proposal probably won't do much to reduce the over-crowding.
GAGA and Wilderness: What I have suggested requires planning and organization, and careful thought. As far as not having the skills, they can be taught by experienced out of work construction workers and other manual labor workers, including coal miners and steel workers, who could be on government payroll. (Oh, oh, my bad socialism again.) They can even be given aptitude tests to see what skills they do have.
Just because they had to leave their country does not mean they don't have skills. As far as cost goes, our infrastructure is crumbling and nothing is being done. That has a cost as well. Who do you think we are going to hire to do those "shovel ready" jobs.
As far as Wilderness' claim about hiring foreign labor goes, Who in the hell do you think built this country?
This administration and Trump are not capable of careful thought, organization, and planning, so you don't have anything to worry about. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every solution looks like a nail."As far as not having the skills, they can be taught by experienced out of work construction workers and other manual labor workers, including coal miners and steel workers, who could be on government payroll."
Yes they could. Again, at our expense. And when we have taught them we can pay them to teach more foreign citizens how to do the work in our country.
My daughter-in-law once discussed how we are becoming a nation of white collar workers and how it was the wave of the future - we are changing from a nation of producers of goods to an information base. Sounded good...right up until she was tasked with training the people in a new office in Korea - her job was being shipped out and they wanted her to train the new people. You're asking our workers to do the same thing - train someone else to do the job they had.
Beyond that, when I moved across country and took up a new trade it required 4 years of school plus 8000 hours of work (4 years), and this is not unusual. Training by an experienced worker was only a part of the package of the 8,000 hours, so for 4 years wages were very low. Not enough to support a family - what you're proposing would mean welfare for at least that long. Or should we force a change in all state laws, effectively outlawing apprenticeship programs?
"Just because they had to leave their country does not mean they don't have skills."
Yes, they have skills and yes, they are often hard workers. Shall we then give all of the a pickaxe and shovel to build a new dam with, returning to the construction methods of the 1800's? If they have skills that we can use we don't need to train them, yet you have proposed a method to do exactly that!
"As far as Wilderness' claim about hiring foreign labor goes, Who in the hell do you think built this country? "
Americans. Not foreign labor. That the rules of immigration have changed does not mean that we need millions of foreign citizens to build - we have plenty of skilled, trained people to do it ourselves.
"This administration and Trump are not capable of careful thought, organization, and planning, so you don't have anything to worry about."
If your concept of what to do with the massive influx of illegal aliens is to train them and pay them to take American jobs, while encouraging more millions to repeat the process (as we've done historically with the resultant mess we face now) I'd have to say that you aren't capable of that careful thought, organization and planning either. Your "solution" will only raise taxes on the rest of us while becoming even more of a haven for people that don't like their own country.
There are other countries that have taken what they had (nearly nothing) and built a thriving economy for their people. S. Korea, Kuwait, Israel - even China (and India is coming on) all come to mind. But it cannot be done with a political climate that cares nothing for its people, and as we are incapable of changing those climates about all that's left is to deny entry. You, on the other hand, are proposing unlimited immigration of unskilled labor, and public support of that labor, until we have been reduced to the same third world status.Actually, the slaves built a significant part of our country. Even the White House was built by slave labor. Of course, white men taught them their trades as well. Sounds sorta familiar...
You're right - they did, at least in a manner. The vast majority worked only for the benefit of the slave owner, not on public projects.
Shall we then return to slavery or, at a minimum, a second class citizenry with the only difference being that Americans as a whole are footing the bill rather than just the slave owner? That doesn't sound real appealing to me...We're heading for economic slavery the way the extremely wealthy take more and more money from the lower classes by whatever means they can. Will you be happy when the entire wealth of the US belongs to a select few?
Not sure what your exaggerated "economic slavery" has to do with millions of foreign citizens demanding we support them. I guess you could regard it as a form of economic slavery, at least if we capitulate and do as they wish, but that seems an awfully big stretch, and it certainly doesn't match any "the entire wealth of the US belongs to a select few".
Can you be more specific (while staying on topic)?It's already at the point of a small percentage of the population having a large percentage of the capital, Dan.
We were discussing slavery if you don't remember...
The only way to stop the influx of refugees is to try to do something about the conditions in their own countries. I finally heard somebody say something to that effect on TV today. He was proposing a coalition of wealthier nations, like the U.S., to go in to these countries, militarily, if no other way, and boot out the drug lords and the corruption so these people can live in their own countries.
It sounds good as a sound bite, but I don't know how practical that would be. However, the alternative is the seemingly endless parade of these people coming into Mexico and the U.S. Perhaps some of the "great military might" that our fearless leader proposes to show off a la Hitler/Kim Jung Un-style could be used to accomplish this.
A wall simply ain't gonna work against this ballooning problem. Putting too much air into a balloon exerts so much pressure against the sides that they eventually break.I think you are wrong - that we CAN do things to control our borders. I hope you are wrong.
For if you are we are doomed to an uncontrolled mass migration to the point that America as a nation will no longer exist; it will have become something else. Something else that is no better and no different than the conditions/nations that spawned the migration.There's still been no genuine effort to gain control over our southern border (bar the latest efforts by Trump). Politicians have to be dragged through the process, which they'll thwart at the least opportunity.
Obama did a little good with more border patrol, but it was in a period with falling traffic because of the recession and no jobs.
Beyond that, very little has been done. When traffic rose dramatically, no response except to declare "NO WALL!". And of course all the border security in the world isn't going to stop the influx without sanctions inside the country; an end to sanctuary cities, an end to the idea that every refugee shall be allowed in and set free, an end to coaching illegals what to lie about to gain refugee status, an end to the concept that if we can just induce tears the laws need not be followed, active large scale deportations and, most importantly, some real teeth in employment laws against hiring illegals.From a behavioral perspective, the driving factor for people crossing the border is hope. For safety, for prosperity, for a better life.
History has shown again and again, the human capacity to hope, even in the most abominable circumstances, is practically limitless. To stop people trying to cross the border, you would need to remove people's capacity to hope.
Detaining people won't do it. Forcing them into cells with standing room only won't do it either. Not letting them shower for days, not providing clean clothes and soap. Separating them from their children. None of that will do it. People have endured the same and even worse at various times and places in history, and hope has always endured.
So what's next? Where do we go from here? What measures, realistically can be taken to overcome the human capacity to hope? And is it possible that if this is the question we are faced with, that we are going about the problem all wrong?"So what's next? Where do we go from here? What measures, realistically can be taken to overcome the human capacity to hope? And is it possible that if this is the question we are faced with, that we are going about the problem all wrong?"
Good question. Short of simply allowing people to flow into the country unabated, we have to do something. Many have suggested stream lining our asylum process and changing the laws so we don't have to detain so many for so long, and can work through the backlog far more quickly.
"To stop people trying to cross the border, you would need to remove people's capacity to hope."
People can continue to hope, and to cast the aspirations of that hope in any direction they choose. What the US has to do is establish order and security on our southern border, so that when vast numbers of people cast their aspirations our way, we can address the situation quickly, right at the border with detention and very quick resolution of asylum requests.I agree, doing nothing won't make the issue go away.
More streamlined processing and a quick resolution of asylum requests? Yes. Would need to make sure it isn't detrimental to those eligible for asylum status being granted asylum though.
Changing law? Possibly. What changes?
I realize you can't solve the issue of immigration right here in this thread. I'm just interested to hear people's ideas.
That is an excellent comment Don. I agree with all of it except the part about overcoming hope.
We do not need to dash their hopes or overcome them. The most compassionate thing we can do for them is to inform their hopes.
[EDIT] a missing "not" was inserted "before need to dash"
GA
Wilderness:
W: Yes they could. Again, at our expense. And when we have taught them we can pay them to teach more foreign citizens how to do the work in our country.
M: You mean like picking strawberries, working in a car wash, and maids in hotels? We need infrastructure repair and improvement. Do you think blue collar and white collar people are going to be doing those jobs?
W: But it cannot be done with a political climate that cares nothing for its people, and as we are incapable of changing those climates about all that's left is to deny entry.
M: Here is a thought. People in our country are the buyers and users of those drugs. We not only have to stop those cartels, but we have to do something with the people that are already here.
You want to deny entry. That is what we are doing now. Trump could care less about these people. If they all suddenly died he would be very happy. That is what he is doing in those detention camps is creating a slow death for those people and their families by separating them and making life miserable for them as an example for the ones who are waiting on the other side of the border.
All I'm trying to do is find a way of turning a crisis into an opportunity and utilizing those people in some humane way is part of it."Humane" is a useless Liberal emotion which has no place in today's right wing ideology.
You're right - when tears and sympathy replace rational, well thought out conclusions and actions, it has no place in anyone's ideology...even though it has taken priority in some.
Are you stating Trump has rational, well thought out conclusions and actions, Dan?
Well, let's see.
He thinks the invasion over the southern border harms us. He's right.
He thinks we should put America First. He's right.
He thinks the media often publishes false news. He's right.
He thinks the media spins most "news" in a negative light for him. He's right.
He thinks liberals are on the wrong path for the country. He's right.
He thought we should halt travel from terrorist supporting nations that do not vet their people. He was right.
He thinks a wall will help control our southern border. He's right as evidenced by the portions that already have one.
He thinks hobbling business with extreme taxes and regulations harms everyone. He's right.
He thinks world trade favors foreign countries over the US. He's right.
He thinks we need a strong manufacturing base. He's right.
He thinks the Mueller investigation into Russian collusion was a witch hunt. He's right.
He thinks it's important to follow our laws whether we like them or not. He's right.
In fact, about the only places he's been wrong are those based on religious beliefs - everything else I can think of is rational and well thought out.In other words, he's a fine human being. How many times was he wrong or lying? There's not enough room to list them....
You asked a question, I answered, and it had exactly zero to do with being a "fine human being". Then you want to take off on a tangent, once more simply bashing him because you don't like him.
Not interested.At least you didn't say, "because you hate him."
Wilderness: I believe Trump's brain works in generalities. He is not capable of nuance and specifics. His Zero Tolerance program is a disaster because it was not well planned and thought out. In his mind, he needs no one else. That's because he wants all the credit and if what he does or says fails, he blames someone else or something else.
His immigration policy is a complete failure and yet he blames the democrats for it. He is not capable of empathy. He goes to visit "his wall", but he won't go visit the people in detention and the miserable conditions in which they have been subjected to try to survive in. He won't even allow himself to think about the families he has separated.
The populous of Germany didn't hate the Jews, they were just indifferent to them. Indifference is worse than hate. Hate takes energy, indifference takes nothing, just look the other way.
What about the 'what next' question Mike? If your proposals were considered, what would be the status of the men and their families after the houses and towns are built?
Green Card? Citizenship?
I think I understand your concept, but I think this question is the most basic one to answer first.
GAI assumed the end goal was to have an unlimited supply of new citizenry; without that we remain in the same position with millions of people wanting the benefits of being an American but without actually being one.
" What I have suggested requires planning and organization, and careful thought. As far as not having the skills, they can be taught by experienced out of work construction workers and other manual labor workers, including coal miners and steel workers, who could be on government payroll"
All this and a boat full of our tax dollars... What a pipe dream. No really!Sharlee: Please read this all the way to the end. You will find that tax payers are paying $750.00 per day for each detainee to private companies.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … ty-floridaOnce again, it's that selective outrage that seems to raise it's head when anyone proposes we do something that could possibly be productive with our tax dollars. Wasteful spending is fine though if it's done by your preferred politician(s) because there is simply no way it could really be wasteful. Every issue is seen through a liberal vs "conservative" or Trumpian lens. It's all nonsense.
Have you taken a moment to think of such a venture? The actual cost? Selective outrage? Productive with our tax dollars? We have people living in the streets, we have a crumbling infrastructure... Yes, we should build towns for immigrants, and we should use our own skilled workers to train immigrants so they can ultimately take the jobs of the men that trained them. And while we are paying our skilled tradesmen to train immigrants we can also pay the immigrants while they are being trained to build their towns.
I am I to understand you would hire skilled contractors to each migrant to so they can be hired to help fix our crumbling infrastructure, as well as build their own towns? So let's just consider this realistically. Are you aware of the wages skilled tradesmen in construction make? Another thing to consider, do you think these skilled tradesmen would be happy to train immigrants to ultimately become their own competition in the job market? Let's not forget while we train these immigrants we will also have to pay them, and most likely supplement them with welfare to survive while they are building their towns...
So does your plan also provide the land along with all the materials to build these wonderful towns? Oh and then also we will also need to develop the land the towns will be built on. Providing waterlines, sewage, gas, and electricity, roads, schools, hospitals...and much more.
Do you have any idea the cost of such a venture? Are you willing to severely increase our national debt to build towns for migrants? I venture to say not many Americans would even consider such a plan.
If you are willing to severely increase our national debt, how about we fix our own infrastructure, and use our American workers to do the job. How about helping out our poor, and making sure our children get decent educations. Need I go on.The next logical step is to train the ex-illegals in business, buy them equipment and shops and set them up in business for themselves. They can hire and train their own illegals to do the jobs of those that trained them while we pay unemployment and welfare to the ex-workers.
If we use business owners already in the construction trade, we can put them out of business and on the dole, too!I feel like I have entered the Twilight zone... I have to laugh, but I should be crying.
Sounds like you have it ALL planned out. I couldn't have even thought of that...makes me wonder. Is the issue more about pounding down what you see as the "other sides" ideas, even if they are fantasy, as opposed to solving problems?
How does refusing to pay for them equate with "pounding down"? Haven't heard anyone at all, let alone me, pursue cutting their standard of living.
Nor have I heard a single potential solution from you or any of the left that doesn't include unlimited immigration. Until the solution includes a reasonable level of immigration, to include all refugees, asylum and simply wanting a better life, you don't have anything to offer any more than I do.
So how about it? What level of foreign citizens are you willing to accept as Americans? A million a year (we already see that in just illegal border crossings, not to mention all the legal immigration and refugees)? 10 million? How many do you think it would take, and how long, to drastically transform our culture and how many/long would it take to drastically negatively affect our standard of living?
And what would you do with the hundreds of thousands each year that exceed your suggestion?I simply stated how I felt about new ideas in dealing with immigration wilderness. Basically, you continue to prove my point about knee jerk reactions to any suggestions.
You are making all kinds of assumptions. We are not even that far off on immigration if I remember right. I too think the spigot must be turned off and we have to deal with those already here in some way. And, some of them, especially Dreamers, are people we don't want to lose. Valedictorians, etc.
I have no desire to come up with comprehensive immigration reform. That is, unless someone is willing to pay me to do so.I just want to say, as a person who has had jobs (both paid and volunteer) that involve addressing community problems, there is a certain type of person who hinders progress by their inability to see possibilities for improvement. They seem to only be able to see the possible pitfalls and are unwilling to move forward on pretty much anything new or innovative.
I'm sure that is particularly frustrating when dealing with community problems. I see that attitude in the comments of the local newspaper section everyday. It makes me respect community leaders more, at least those that aren't straight criminals. Unfortunately we have the FBI busting half our Democrats here.
Corruption is not a party line issue, it's a character issue. that's why character matters more than party lines.
I was the one who came up with the plan and I was thinking outside of the box. Creativity is based on novel ideas, not consistency. They say if you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results, that it is a form of insanity. At the very least, it will frustrate you.
To solve a problem, you have to determine what the root cause of the problem is. If you believe Trump, it is, "They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
He states this, I presume without any evidence. I believe it is the opposite, most are good people. My little plan brings out the best and the worst in people on this forum.
The immigrants trying to get into this country are not the root cause. That is the symptom of them leaving their country because of mistreatment by people in their country. They are here because of the expectation for a better way of life.
So I'm thinking outside the box again: As far as I know, we still have a peace corps. Why don't we send them to those South American countries to find out what is really going on and then report back the findings to come up with some kind of solution that is beneficial to all.
Trump just diverted 2.5 million of the Park Services tax payers money on his parade. Surely he can afford to send people in the peace corp to those countries to find out how what is really driving them to leave their countries and seek asylum here.
At the very least, they can be educated as to what the laws are and what to expect when seeking asylum in this country, that could preclude some from even coming here.
We have many young bi-lingual Spanish speaking youth in this country who would love to go to a foreign country, but again, it requires thought and specific planning of which I don't think Trump is capable of doing. We could even fly aircraft that drop leaflets to tell them what to expect.
Trump and his people are not capable of thinking outside the box. Trump has successfully divided this country into the us and them mentality so that he can manipulate the people with his fear mongering programs. He knows that's how you conquer any endeavor is by dividing its people. in my opinion, that is what Trump is all about.Yes, we must be willing to be big and bold to solve big problems. Unfortunately, that is very hard to do these days. There will always be those who pick, pick, pick at every plan. If the overall idea is sound, the details can be worked out, and yes, sometimes we screw up in the process. I'm quite certain some of these naysayers would have been against pretty much every bold initiative ever done in this country. Their basic nature is to hold on to what they have for dear life, even if it harms others and even if the status quo is not satisfactory.
PP, please have a look at this link. It provides the number of immigrants ICE removed in 2018. I think it will give you a better idea of who is in the country illegally, and who ICE is deporting. The numbers are shocking of those that come into our country and commit crimes. Trump, may not use the right words to convey the problem with political correctness, but he is telling the truth. You tell me if Trump overstated the problem. It's not fear mongering to point out horrendous problems. It's making citizens aware of a growing problem. It's sheer facts that cause the great divide in this situation. We have hundreds of thousands coming into the country with very little vetting being done due to the sheer number we are back to catch and release. Does this suit you? As Trump said, "and yes there are some good people"...
But we have no way of really knowing anyone's motives now do we?
https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/office … Report.pdfMike, you may be right about needing to "think outside the box" to find a solution. I also think you are right that the starting point is to look at the root causes, not the symptoms.
Regarding your Peace Corps thought, I don't think that is necessary--as a first move. There is tons of data, both statistical and anecdotal that clearly identifies the root cause of the first problem in these South American countries.
It is gang, factional, and government violence and corruption that exists because the citizens of these nations do not have the protection of the rule of law. Their governments are either unable or unwilling to enforce any rule of law, and in many instances, they are complicit in the violence and corruption.
That is the first root cause pushing their immigrants to our border.
But I think that is only half of the problem--the half that pushes their citizens to flee. The other half of the problem is our immigration laws. These immigrants know that our laws demand that we accept them on our soil for processing, and they know that that process of processing can take years. Years in which they will be living in our country and receive support assistance while they do so. That is the pull factor that combines with the "push" from their countries that lands them on our border.
Consider those as two parts of addressing the first problem of stopping the flow to our borders.
The second problem--the topic of this thread--is how to deal, (rightly and humanely), with those that are already here; both in the camps and in our nation as non-detainees.
The problem I see is that those two problems can't be separated. We can't formulate a plan to deal with those here if we can't stop the incoming flood of more. Even if a plan such as your towns in the desert was tried, for every man and family you put to work and moved to those towns, they would be replaced by twice as many new immigrants because we have now added another "pull" factor; just get across the border and the U.S. will train you, house you, and provide assistance while you get established.
I am criticizing your plan as unworkable Mike, not you for coming up with it, or because it is an "out of the box" idea. So I hope you will take my comments as discussion and not criticism.
As I see it, until we address the "pull" factors of our immigration laws the flow will continue to increase, so if we can't stop the flow all we can do is build more camps--at whatever cost is needed--to house and care for the hundreds of thousands that will be coming in the next couple of years alone. In essence, an open borders scenario.
It is either open borders policies or build more and more detainment camps.
Relative to your thought about "root causes," check out this response to Don W. It contained some very pertinent information: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4084002
Her's a short blurb from that post about a CBP officer's comment:
"[F]amily units apprehended by Border Patrol . . . claimed that a principal motive for entering the United States was to take advantage of the “permisos” that the United States was granting to family units. The term “permiso” in this context is used to refer to a Notice to Appear which permits aliens to depart the Border Patrol station without detention . . . . while this impression [that the U.S. government was planning to stop issuing “permisos” in June or July 2014] was incorrect, it speaks to the understanding of the family units that detention, and the ability to simply depart a Border Patrol station, factor strongly into their determination on when and whether to cross into the United States . . . . Based on my experience as a Border Patrol Agent, the use of detention has historically been effective at deterring aliens (specifically aliens from countries other than Mexico) from entering the United States through the South Texas region.'
And here is the report it came from: Judicial Rulings Ending the Obama Administration’s Family Detention Policy: Implications for Illegal Immigration and Border Security
GA
Perhaps it is a knee jerk reaction...but because the only solutions appear to be open borders and a welcome mat to any that want in. That is a "solution" that will destroy us as a nation and a culture, but it appears to be all that is ever offered.
Yes, we must do something about those that are here, and we must do something to stop or drastically slow the influx. Yet none of the tear jerk stories and complaints ever seem to address that at all - just take them in because they are poor.
We may not be so far apart at that; there is an article on my carousel about what to do and it includes citizenship for most of those here. But it also includes closing the border and shutting off the flow, and that is something that doesn't seem to get much attention from those complaining about how terrible we're treating people choosing to violate our laws. So...that knee jerk reaction.I cannot find a real point of disagreement here. I also agree that none of the tear-jerk stories every address the need for comprehensive reform which we do need. Of course, we aren't talking specifics here, but at least I can state that we share the same vision.
I think I've heard Pelosi state that she does think we need better border enforcement...whether she's serious about it or not. But, unless I'm missing something, I haven't heard anything from the Democratic candidates about stemming the flow. I don't think we should have solutions for those that have been here for years, doing good things, without addressing the border. We need innovative solutions for both of these things as opposed to just shutting down when we talk about one or the other. I think this used to be a universal wish from both parties. Now, it too often seems the Dems want open borders and the R's want mass round up/deportations, border walls, with little concerns as to the economic or humanitarian effects. However, I do think mos Americans understand the need for both. It's just that one extreme or the other is what gets all the media attention and thus the attention of our politicians.
I think the main problem is that everyone understands we have to help. The liberal mind stops there. So, to the liberal, that means anyone, anywhere.
The conservative mind takes that desire to help and attempts to determine how, reasonably. How to help without harming.
Sounds good..let's do it all. If you look back, I don't think anyone was arguing specifics on this..I was simply backing up Mike's point about needed to think about doing something productive with the immigration debacle. No one was implying we had the perfect plan. In fact, if I had such a plan I'd want paid for it.
That went downhill quick though I think it kind of proves my point about selective outrage and the inability to even think about doing anything not approved by one's favorite politician.Let's recap. You offer an unrealistic plan. Someone points out how completely unrealistic it is, and somehow it falls back on Trump support being the problem.
Reminds of the Kevin Bacon game,I didn't even offer the plan. I simply stated Mike was on the right track. Don't anyone stick there head out cause it will get lopped off, lol. Some of us aren't scared to discuss new ideas. Also, where did I fall back onto Trump support as the problem here? I think this happens with people no matter the politician(s) they support.
If we all went out of our way to find points of agreement as much as we do points of contention, America wouldn't be so divided.
Perhaps I should not have faulted PP for thinking outside the box. However, perhaps we need to address the horrendous problems our present immigration laws and lack of enforcing those laws are causing at the border. And then have a long look at what can be done to fix our present immigration laws. I think to do this it would be the necessary consider the core of the problem, and decide how we can help, but also keep in mind how any new immigration laws will affect America and its citizens. You are right about selective outrage, and yes this country is very divided. On the one hand, we have very common sense people hoping to be compassionate yet are realistic to how much should be expected of America in regards to providing asylum. Also taking into account nation debt, and what it would mean to take on more than we can afford. On another hand, we have many that feel open borders would be something we could handle and even welcome. Some being generous and caring enough to create towns for the onslaught if migrants. As you might see the various ideologies mix no better than oil and vinegar.
In regards to the selective outrage and the inability to even think about doing anything not approved by one's favorite politician.
You hit it right on the head... We have people living in horrendous conditions due to overcrowding. The Trump administration asked for funds six months ago. The Congress loudly claimed there was no crisis at the border, and left media promoted Congresses claims. The right media pointed out nightly the horrendous conditions that the overcrowding was causing. They reported the numbers of people crossing into the country monthly which was even causing more problems and the rise in unaccompanied children. Yes, the stories we were being fed caused a further divide. But the problem was ignored by Congress until it became so intolerable they had to address it. The right hoped for money, the left became indignant and protested the facilities as concentration camps that should be closed... And even some protested Wayfair and did not want beds provided for the facilities. So, on one hand, you have people again using common sense, asking for funds to alleviate suffering. The left pointed fingers unjustly and screamed close them down... Don't sell them beds. Their logic was so flawed. Not sure how you place hundreds of children into safe vetted homes? Which they have been doing for many months. And is it wise just to catch and release? Then we have a look at let's not sell them beds. This logic would only serve to have men, women, and children sleeping on cement. But I guess some could justify this for their cause?
It is clear Trump's solutions were to change immigration laws, and while he had no success with that even when he had a majority in office, he has now turned to make attempts to deter the number of migrants that present themselves at our borders. he has asked them to present themselves at legal border crossings, he has made it known they will be detained while processed.
In regards to " to do something productive with the immigration". Would it not be wiser to consider what can be done to deter immigrants from presenting themselves in caravans at our borders, perhaps be allowed to apply for asylum in their country of origin? Would it be more sensible to enforce the number of immigrants our laws dictate we will take in yearly? We have well surpassed that number in six months. Perhaps we could start to enforce our laws while revamping them."In regards to " to do something productive with the immigration". Would it not be wiser to consider what can be done to deter immigrants from presenting themselves in caravans at our borders, perhaps be allowed to apply for asylum in their country of origin? Would it be more sensible to enforce the number of immigrants our laws dictate we will take in yearly? We have well surpassed that number in six months. Perhaps we could start to enforce our laws while revamping them."
I think it would be wiser to attempt both at the same time. We had a major bill that did this, which almost passed.
The only real arguments I've heard against Mike's plan is that it would cost too much, no Americans would want to train people to take their jobs, and we must deal with the influx first.
I don't think anyone stated we cannot deal with the influx, I'm tired of the costs the costs the costs when it's something that a group of people have been conditioned to simply be against but the costs are not an object when it comes to something like a wall. As far as would anyone be willing to train people to eventually take their jobs. This is a legitimate question that may, or may not, be able to be worked out. I mean are the trainers skilled enough to remain supervisors? We really do have many jobs that immigrants (illegal and legal) Americans won't do because they'd rather walk around like zombies on meth, or can't do because they wouldn't, our couldn't, get the necessary education. IF we did fine such a plan workable we must address college and training for low-skilled American workers as well.
Is such a plan, or anything similar, guaranteed to work? Of course not. But, the manner in which it was dismissed, with some of the straw dog arguments, is indicative of why the US gets little done these days and is being passed up in terms of having a skilled workforce that's ready to meet today's challenges, let alone tomorrow's. Things such as rampant nepotism, highlighted by the current executive branch, and the cost of college don't help either.You may be tired of "the costs the costs the costs" while the same people complaining don't whine about the cost of a wall.
But there is a major difference: the cost of a wall is a one time thing that should alleviate some of the problem. The costs of inviting unlimited numbers of unskilled people into the nation will not only be repeated every year it will grow every year, and grow very rapidly as those in poverty find that they can live a much better life on the backs of Americans.
And yes, we cannot deal with the influx. From a social, cultural and even economic basis bringing millions and millions of those same people into the country will very quickly change the nature of all three aspects into something very different. And that "different" will be just what the immigrants left behind; abject poverty and violence.Apologies, my "cannot deal with the influx" comment wasn't clear. My meaning is there's no reason we cannot fight illegal immigration at the same time we deal with those already here.
"he costs of inviting unlimited numbers of unskilled people into the nation will not only be repeated every year it will grow every year, and grow very rapidly as those in poverty find that they can live a much better life on the backs of Americans."
I think there's also a misunderstanding here. Once again, just because I support reasonable plans to deal with illegal immigrants already here, doesn't mean I support "inviting" more illegal immigration. If we do it properly, they can be mutually exclusive.
So, yes I grow tired of people complaining about costs when they invite the high-cost wall because it makes for a great sound-bite.Thinking out of the box, is a form of brainstorming to come up with new ideas. Some ideas work and some don't, but they can stimulate discussion into other relevant areas, as witnessed in this forum.
So far everybody in this forum has been concerned about the bad guys that are coming across the border and are being apprehended by ICE for violation of their policies. But has anybody looked at how many good people have come across the border and compared that number with the bad guys? I'm going to try to do that, and will let you know.
In my research, I have found that many people leave their country of origin without a clue that they need essential paperwork to claim asylum at the borders and they are put in detention or just turned away.
I agree with those who say they should be stopped before they come here, especially if they don't have the proper paper work that the CBP requires. So how about if leaflets are dropped on the caravans to inform them of what is required for legal entry. That could deter many of them from even leaving?...again just brainstorming.Seems like a logical, and not so costly effort. Stopping them before they come here should be a top priority.
"In 2018, the U.S. government will give Mexico $87,660,000 in foreign aid." -Of course, this doesn't include aid to Central and South American nations. It would seem we could do more with this cash to directly affect the conditions that have the people fleeing. I mean, we are already spending that money, why not make the efforts more focused? Ending the war on drugs would likely save the feds cash and cut down on illegal immigration. Republicans are so keen on shutting down agencies. Why not the inefficient DEA?
I copied a FB statement from an immigration attorney during the whole caravan fiasco. Unfortunately, I don't have the name of the attorney, but here's a portion of that statement:
"Likewise, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the country has remained mostly steady (with a slight downward trend) at 11.8 million in 2007 and 11.1 million in 2014. The DHS say the increase of 0.5 million from 2010 to 2014 reflects "relative stability"(9).
Again, this does not suggest to me that there is a "crisis" of illegal immigration. It's certainly an issue, but it's not more of an issue now than it was in 2007. Again, the government's statistics shows it's slightly less of an issue.
There is a backlog of asylum cases in the system waiting to be processed. As of June 2018 there were around 320 thousand cases on the books(10). This is an administrative issue though (perhaps also flying in an army of legal professionals would be of benefit).|"
We could argue all day about "crises" but I think the last paragraph should be part of the solution. Deal with the asylum seekers faster. Get them in America or get them out, but either way, get them out of the camps.I think your attorney statement is more than a little out of date. I don't recall caravans of thousands, trained to give false answers to questions, hitting our borders in 2007. But be that as it may, the numbers of illegal border crossings (which inevitably increase the number in the country) saw a very sharp rise in the past year or year and a half. As our economy bloomed, so did the illegal crossings and that is not reflected in the statement.
I grabbed the attorney statement from FB during the recent Trump border caravan crisis. As I stated, I don't like illegal immigration, whether it's on the rise or not, so I don't see the need to argue specifics. At any rate, wouldn't you say Trump is ineffective on one of his signature issues if border crossings are up since he took office. You can blame in on Congress, but he's the top dog, supreme deal maker, so he's responsible.
Disagree, nearly 100%. Congress is to blame for the mess at the border; they have had years and years to address illegal border crossings and have done almost nothing to limit it. Obama tried with additional border patrol, but it's going to take a lot more than that, and until additional steps are taken to reduce the incentive to enter it's not going to stop.
Trump has tried with a wall, with stronger border enforcement, with negative consequences for illegal entry, and everything he has tried has been immediately shut down by congress as "inhumane" or other nonsense. Congress is not, at this point, interested in allowing anything that might help as it can be used in demonizing Trump. Under those circumstances there isn't much Trump can do - while I applaud efforts to solve the problem when those efforts are immediately closed off it seems more than a little disingenuous to assign blame to the only person trying anything at all.
It's just like the DACA mess; this should never have happened at all, but Obama took the step because congress refused to act. Trump tried to force the issue, to end the fiasco and to force congress to solve a problem he does not have the authority to address and the response was to shut down any efforts and return to ignoring it while using it to demonize Trump rather than make an effort to find a solution. The border is no different; there is no effort by the only body that has the authority to act, only screams of dismay (think AOC here) and really exaggerated claims blaming Trump for congressional failure.To someone who states he does nothing but win and promised the world, Trump deserves the blame for a continuing, and, according to you, worsening problem.
Yes, Congress and past Presidents have blame also, but Trump invites praise for ANYTHING that goes well, or seemingly has gone well, over like the last fifty years...so he's not getting a pass from me on one of his signature issues.
He's losing on this...bigly and he's the self-entitled king deal maker!!! Make the deal then...get it done chief. Maybe all his trash talking makes it harder to get things done? Just a thought.
But, as I stated previously, I do think he's right on the matter of too many people coming here who are not eligible for asylum.Can't make a deal with people whose only desire is to make him look as bad as possible and then remove him from office.
And they are succeeding; there are far too many people that ignore that it is a problem caused solely by congress, that other presidents have tried to fix it while they refused to act and that they are repeating the process with Trump. And they then blame Trump for their inaction...just as you are doing. You're couching it in language that almost sounds reasonable (He's the king of deals, cut a deal with people that won't speak to him then!) but when considered beyond the surface layer it doesn't work. You can't "deal" with people that won't listen, won't talk, declare there IS no problem and seek only to cause harm.
(Finally, no, his trash talk doesn't make things harder. He's not a Democrat and therefore the enemy - that's how our legislative system works today and all the sweet talk in the world won't change that. Only a complete capitulation to liberal philosophies; in this case open borders until the country has become just another third world chunk of poverty.)Wilderness: As far as I know, dems don't talk about open borders and having illegals overrun the country. That is language that Trump has used to re-frame the issue. It is a gross exaggeration of what dems want.
They want to improve the enforcement of the southern border, but not by building walls that are already there. That 's why they won't give Trump his 5.2 billion he is asking for, not because they want open borders. Trump is playing this game of promises made; promises kept to help him get re-elected.
As far as people coaching others to game the asylum system, the ultimate decision for entry is made by the CBP officers reviewing the asylum application. They call it asylum roulette. It depends on who the interviewer is and what they decide is legal cause claiming asylum. It is mostly subject to interpretation. Building walls that are already there does not help with the enforcement of the border. They need more personnel, resources, and technology.You can tell those who claim the left want's open borders because they parrot Fox talking points when they have nothing substantial to defend their claims. I've not heard one person from the left who wants open borders. Trump voters--like their idol--care nothing for the truth.
I don't think most liberals want open borders at all, especially when the party leadership states the exact opposite.
I think things like AOC's call to abolish ICE altogether, don't help with the "open border" perception because, from the ICE page, the agency's four-part mission is "Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). A fourth directorate – Management and Administration (M&A) –"
So, calling for an elimination of ICE, with the Enforcement and Removal Operations, can easily be stretched by Trump to "they want open borders."
Then again,
"The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created in 2003, in the same suite of post-9/11 legislation as the Patriot Act and the Iraq War."
So, were there open borders before 2003. Of course not as we had the Customs and Border Patrol Ofiice. In fact the CBP had "Immigration inspectors, who traced their responsibilities to the establishment of the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration on March 3, 1891." https://www.cbp.gov/about/history
To me, the issue is two-fold. One, as previously stated, the calls to eliminate ICE by a faction of the Democrat party is easily seen as "open borders." And two, I don't think Democrats like AOC have said much of anything about what they WOULD do about illegal immigration. BIG mistake, and I think Pelosi/Schumer know this.
"Finally, no, his trash talk doesn't make things harder. He's not a Democrat and therefore the enemy - that's how our legislative system works today and all the sweet talk in the world won't change that. "
When people don't like you or respect your word, it's difficult to make a deal. This is learned very early in life. He's the deal maker..he should know this. I guess this is just one of those things. Ultimately, the only real reason for assigning blame is to help with a voting decision, and my guess is you're voting for Trump is virtually set in stone as is my vote against Trump.You missed the point. His talk has nothing to do with congressional Democrats refusing to work with him, or even accept the good ideas he has. It is 100% about partisan politics; he's not a Democrat and thus must be opposed at every opportunity. Not only that, but he must be degraded and demonized at every opportunity.
Our system has always been one of mud slinging, but it just gets worse and worse with time and is now to the point that such activity is all that matters - nothing else can touch it for a priority.
(Nor do I assign such activity to one party; that it is the Democrats this time around only indicates a Republican president.This can be seen in that when elected Republicans hated him as much as Democrats, but now he has some following and we see good things happening they're quite happy to accept him as a fellow Republican.)
The crap about Obama's birth certificate, bad as it was, was only a harbinger of what was to come, and unless "we the people" put a stop to it we will soon find that Capital Hill is in a complete deadlock on every issue - there will be zero in the way of compromise or effort to work together."His talk has nothing to do with congressional Democrats refusing to work with him, or even accept the good ideas he has. "
Once again, Trump's name-calling, extremely juvenile behavior, etc. hurts his ability to make deals. That's my point, and I think it's basic human nature. As I stated before, Trump definitely doesn't deserve all the blame for immigration troubles, but, come on, we all know it's harder to negotiate with people you despise and has a word not worth the time it takes to listen to him speak.
Obama was also " opposed at every opportunity" by Repubilcans because he was a Democrat. But Trump added another dimension of dis-honorable behavior that makes deal-making with him a sickening and ludicrous suggestion for many.
Of course, assigning blame is not always clear cut, and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on Trump, but I agree that both parties put party before county all too often.Yes, Trump's language would certainly hurt his chances of negotiation...were there any chance of it happening. There isn't, so there is nothing to damage. That's my view of politics in our country today - while you may disagree I really don't think you believe that Democrats have any intention at all of fixing our immigration problems. Any more than Republicans do.
Trump might (might) be able to cut a deal with a Republican controlled congress (though I find it doubtful), but there is simply no chance with Democrats, for they will refuse anything offered by a Republican president. Governing the country, providing for its needs, working together to form a compromise; these are at the bottom of the priority list, far far below the desire to remove Trump from office. So they play political games in the hopes of gaining political points rather than work on the problems of the nation.
And that makes a "deal" out of the question whether Trump talks nice or mean. The only chance he has of "making a deal" is to convince vast numbers of voters that there really is a major problem; enough voters to convince the Democrat leadership that they will lose a great many "points" by not cooperating in a solution, and with the propensity of the public to believe lies and spin simply because they hate Trump it isn't likely at all to happen. Trump has tried this method with DACA, with internment of adults, with ICE raids, etc and the biggest result was that the Democrat leadership managed to convince the public there is no problem, that Trump is simply evil for following the laws they wrote. How many times have we heard "There is no crises"? It has turned around now, and there IS a crises (the same one we had before), but the crises has been spun to be that Trump is trying to end it, not that the nation has a any real problem outside of Trump attempting to stop unlimited immigration.I recall a bipartisan agreement on immigration that gave Trump most of what he asked for and was rejected by Trump. That repudiates your contention that there was never a chance for negotiation to begin with.
That is my only point. I'll butt out now.What did that "agreement" do to stop the influx? Did it build a wall? Did it vastly increase the ICE raids? Our crises is not that people are in internment camps, it is millions of people entering the country illegally and now with fake horror stories of violence. As far as I know that agreement did not address the problem at all, just tried to put a bandaid on the symptoms and cover it up for another ten years.
I'm not going to argue the effectiveness of the specifics, but rejecting a bipartisan deal that gave him most of what he asked for is rejecting forward movement in favor of....what?
Don't know about specifics, but did the agreement make any effort to halt illegal immigration OR even get rid of those that were already successful in the past? Did it address the DACA problem, removing those people from second class status and making them citizens?
I could well be wrong, but there was no effort to fix anything at all, just cover it up. Am I wrong? WAS there an effort to slow or stop illegal immigration, regardless of whether I think it would work or not?
THAT is our problem - illegal immigration (and now hordes of people being coached in how to ask for asylum when the coaches know it won't work), and I just don't recall that agreement even trying to address that.It included money for the wall, but I guess that doesn't qualify as fixing anything in your mind, even though Trump and his supporters have vehemently stated it will.
I knew there was probably no point in addressing your false premise that no negotiations could ever happen, and I was right.Yes, I remember that. About a fifth of what was asked for, which was but a 20th of what was needed, right? And I'm not sure at all, but weren't there some pretty radical efforts in that same agreement to let millions more in? Something about not providing beds in detention centers in the hopes we would be forced to simply release thousands of illegals into the country?
Nevertheless, I was surprised that it wasn't accepted, even though not really in good faith ("good faith" in ending the invasion does not include provisions to release them into the country).
"That's my view of politics in our country today - while you may disagree I really don't think you believe that Democrats have any intention at all of fixing our immigration problems. Any more than Republicans do."
You are not entirely incorrect here and this is a part of my struggle on who the hell to vote for in federal offices for 2020. I'm not sure that Dems or Republicans want to do anything about immigration, and i don't think Trump can do squat even if he his sincere. There IS a faction of Democrats that want open borders and Dems don't want to alienate that faction...I have FB friends who are part of that Dem faction.
Of course, immigration isn't the only issue, but I would LOVE to hear a Democrat, or even someone running against Trump as a Republican, make stemming the flow of illegal immigration a real part of the platform. At least make me believe that maybe you are serious.No, it certainly isn't the only issue. With the economy and employment cooking nicely, I'd put infrastructure next, but ONLY if the economy isn't destroyed by more attacks on business. If we keep the economy going much of the poverty in the country will disappear by itself so that may not be a huge concern. Health care is as we continue to demand more and better care at lower and lower prices, right up to free.
And that might bring up the necessity of instilling self sufficiency and pride back into our people. After generations of freebies, and people growing up believing that someone else (whether parents, cities or Washington) owes them a living I don't have a clue how to start there.Americans certainly need a shot of pride and self-sufficiency. If people aren't willing to work 60 hours a week for the things they want, I think some do need to adjust their lifestyle. For example, buy an old car for cash and do much of the work on it yourself, etc. This is how my family has been able to pay the bills, and have some cash for the things we really like to do. You simply cannot have it all unless maybe your wealthy, and we don't need it all.
However, while the economy today is not too bad from where I sit, the wages are still low enough that too many people do have to rely on a certain amount of assistance to get by and too many families must have two parents working to make ends meet--but some of that goes back to priorities as I discussed before.
I guess I want a return to the days of at least attempting to get assistance programs to be a leg up. These days, it seems people either demonize anyone who is ballsy enough to use the system in anyway, or , all too often, we have the ones who just give up and take what they can without giving back. I come from the school of do what it takes as long as you know you are putting in what you can. I simply cannot act any other way.
There's a healthy medium of social safety nets, etc. while also encouraging work that can help us bring back our sense of community and pride. I don't see either party working toward that medium, anymore than I see them working on real immigration solutions.
One problem--nothing new-- is that many of the people in charge of assistance programs don't have even the slightest grasp of how the policies work in the real world. You know that I'm not afraid to say the uber wealthy can pay more, but I also don't think we should all have to pay more for the group that shows off their pajamas at the local 7-11 while using food stamps to buy fountain pops and candy bars while they buy Marlboros and candy bars. It's too dam much.
I just hope that people can understand that many of us do want the same things, decreased illegal immigration, good safety net programs, strong economy, etc. I just think the black or white one way or the other attitude perpetuated by the media is needlessly tearing our nation apart..and, unfortunately, Trump's immature name calling doesn't help one bit.
Apologies for the off-topic rant.A very good rant, IMO.
Yes, we need a good safety net, but we don't have one...while providing cradle to grave support for able bodied people that don't want to work. A travesty, and one that desperately needs re-worked.
I think we could get along quite well. Certainly better than the pack of squabbling children on Capital Hill.Imagine what we could do as a nation if many-- not quite all--of us realized that we do have the same end-goal in mind. Maybe things would be different in Washington if it weren't for the big-money interests sponsoring them all. Or, if it didn't seem like they had to pander to their extremists bases. I don't know. But, at least agreeing on the stated goals doesn't seem too difficult, and they can't even do that. The devil should only be in the details.
--Oh, and that was Marlboro's and lottery tickets in addition to the fountain pops and candy bars. I want to slap some of these people, especially knowing that some of them came from good, hard-working families. There are many safety-net success stories. There would be more if we changed our collective attitudes. Uplift, don't shame, but make those perpetual assistance-reliant, able-bodied adults do something to give back to earn their keep. I'm going to have to do some digging to find vote-worthy candidates in 2020.I dunno, Hard sun. I see the typical liberal as far down the socialism path, demanding ever more government and ever more government control over individuals. I see the typical conservative (or least a strong minority) as far down the religious control - only accepting government as a method of exerting the control they think their god wants.
The conservative faction may not be as large as the liberal (fewer religious demands than socialistic ones) but both are large, very vocal and very, very demanding.
And these two large factions are not interested in the slightest in any form of compromise. Their goals are simply too far apart for there to be any cooperation, and they will accept nothing but total capitulation to those goals. The rest of us may well be able to get along with some cooperation and compromise, but not those two...and they are the squeaky wheel. I truly do fear for the future of our country - while I feel that the religious nuts are pretty much (pretty much!) controlled, the socialists are not and socialism is not a goal I aspire to or think builds a strong, vibrant country.
But it's not "Congress" wilderness.
Just as your support and the support of millions of others prompts Trump and Republicans to push for these measures, so millions of people who are opposed to some of those measures, prompt Democrats to oppose them.
You are represented in Congress on this issue by Republicans and the measures they are pushing for. Others are being represented in Congress by Democrats and their opposition to some of those measures.
If you want Democratic opposition to stop, you need to convince their constituents to vote conservative, by making the case that the measures you are proposing are the best way of dealing with the problem.
Stalemate in Congress is just a reflection of division in the country. Such division will always result in a stalemate, by design, and that's a good thing. It means a Democratic Executive can't just drag the country to the far left, and a Republican executive can't just drag the country kicking and screaming to the far right.
That is the protection afforded by the system of government outlined in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the current administration has decided to try a different tactic: break the system. And that is what the current constitutional crisis is all about. The current administration trying to bypass the checks and balances built into the system so it can do what it wants. How far it gets with that project depends on how many people choose to ignore it."The only chance he has of "making a deal" is to convince vast numbers of voters that there really is a major problem; enough voters to convince the Democrat leadership that they will lose a great many "points" by not cooperating in a solution"
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … ost4084740
You're right in that Trump is trying to bypass the checks and balances, just as Obama did successfully when he unilaterally instituted DACA and gave a "second class citizenship" to millions without any authority or authorization to do so. But there is no "constitutional crises" here; only that at the border, which congress as encouraged and built over decades of time.
No, the stalemate we're seeing in the last decade or so is not a good thing, and it's growing worse. It's gotten to the point that there is a virtual stalemate on nearly everything that goes on, to the point that we see legislators walking out in order to prevent a quorum on a vote they cannot win. And that's NOT how reasonable, reasoning people work together to run a country. (Going well beyond the immigration mess here.)The next president to take office can revoke all the EOs signed by a previous president in if they choose to. That doesn't mean relying EOs is great, but their use does not threaten the fundamental protections the system provides.
Much more serious is preventing Congress from representing its constituents by effectively banning administration officials from complying with Congressional subpoenas and giving testimony. That's very serious, because one of the Constitutional duties of Congress (as outlined in the Constitution) is oversight of the Executive.
As you know, it performs that role via (among other things) the Committee system, through which it gathers information and deliberates. A blanket ban on administration officials complying with Congress means it cannot perform the function it is designed to on behalf of its constituents.
It is a constitutional crisis because two branches of government are in conflict neither can "win". The Executive does not have authority over Congress and vice-versa. They are coordinate, i.e. equal in rank. So one cannot simply order the other to do (or not do) something. Therefore if one decides to simply ignore the other, or prevent the other doing its job, it can't be resolved by either within any authority either possesses.
Even worse, having gotten into that situation with Congress, the Trump administration now seems to be getting into a similar situation with the third branch, by ignoring a Supreme Court ruling on the census questions. Again that will produce a Constitutional crisis because the Judiciary and the Executive are coordinate also.
With these conflicts, it's clear the Trump administration is simply trying to break the system. That's extremely dangerous, because it is the system of government laid out in the Constitution that protects the political left and the political right from each other. It requires compromise to satisfy Congress (which represents the left and the right). It requires compliance with the law to satisfy the Judiciary. So a left-leaning Executive can't force the country to veer to the far left, and a right-leaning president can't force the country to go veering to the far-right.
The current Executive apparently doesn't accept that, and wants to rule by fiat. I can't overstate how dangerous that is. You may not see the danger because the person currently in office is a conservative and so are you. So let me put it in terms you can relate to. Imagine AOC is president. Now imagine she simply ignores the judiciary and Congress and enacts whatever policies she chooses.
Would that situation be long-lived? Probably not. But imagine the damage that would be done in the process of returning the system back to some semblance of normality. I see no reason to believe that is not currently where we are heading with the Trump administration.
And I fear these issues will not be considered by the majority of people who are consumed by the daily political soap-opera, and all manner of other things.
We could argue all day about "crises" but I think the last paragraph should be part of the solution. Deal with the asylum seekers faster. Get them in America or get them out, but either way, get them out of the camps.
But they're not. On the contrary...
A high-ranking Customs and Border Protection official told Congress earlier this month that border agents were limiting asylum applications along the border because allowing too many migrants to apply would inspire more migrants to come, according to a letter written by senior House Democrats on Monday.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses "metering" as a way to manage the flow of people seeking entry at official ports of entry — capping the daily number of asylum applications received at official border crossings.
It was used sparingly under Obama but has become common practice under the Trump administration.
While the stated intentions behind metering may be reasonable, the practice may have unintended consequences. For instance, OIG saw evidence that limiting the volume of asylum-seekers entering at ports of entry leads some aliens who would otherwise seek legal entry into the United States to cross the border illegally. According to one Border Patrol supervisor, the Border Patrol sees an increase in illegal entries when aliens are metered at ports of entry.
OIG ReportEdit: Currently it seems that even when caught coming in illegally, many may wind up in the camps: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … ted-states
They are placed in removal proceedings because they:
Were apprehended (or caught) in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry without proper legal documents or in violation of their immigration status,
OR
Were caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trying to enter the United States without proper documentation, were placed in the expedited removal process, and were found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture by an Asylum Officer.
The immigration laws need to be changed to accommodate job needs. This would be a real change that would work for all involved. As you mentioned we have jobs that our own citizens don't seem to want to do. Let more migrants in to fill these jobs and live here on visas, and perhaps work their way to becoming citizens. I think we have to address the dreamers and let them earn a path to citizenship.
Our immigration problem has erupted due to the number of immigrants flagrantly disregard for our laws, and the fact due to the number coming across we can't possibly enforce our laws. We need to update our immigration laws to fit today's needs and be able to enforce new laws. We need to limit how many people we give asylum to each year. The time is overdue to revamp old laws that don't work.
it's apparent that some citizens feel we can accommodate open borders, some are adamantly against it. Both sides appear passionate about what they feel is right for the country. Perhaps we need to have a nationwide vote in regards to open borders. I guess I am thinking outside the box. One thing for sure we are ones again our citizens are deeply divided on another issue. To me, it seems that common sense should prevail. Change the immigration laws, and enforce them.Sharlee I agree with you that our immigration laws, (actually I am thinking of just one aspect of our laws), do need to be changed, but let me offer you a thought of which type of change that should be.
We already have laws and policies concerning guest worker visa programs, and we already have good immigration laws addressing most of the points you mention.
What I think we need is one change that will help fix this asylum seeker problem. I do not see any way to limit the number of asylum seekers we might accept. If they are legitimate seekers, how could any be turned away?
But, the one change I am leading to is to make our asylum seeker law comport with international asylum seeker laws. An asylum seeker must be coming directly from the country they are seeking asylum from.
Once they have crossed into a safe country, (in the case of this discussion that would be Mexico), then they would no longer be legitimate asylum seekers at our border. They could get the asylum they seek in Mexico.
I think our current immigration laws may be up to the task of dealing with economic refugees, it is in dealing with asylum-seeking refugees that they fail.
Take a look around our current immigration laws to see what you think. I think you might find a discussion of this specific law change might suit your thoughts.
GA"But, the one change I am leading to is to make our asylum seeker law comport with international asylum seeker laws. An asylum seeker must be coming directly from the country they are seeking asylum from."
This seems like a solid idea so I did a little research. Indeed, it does seem to be the basic international legal standards, however, the first country must be considered "safe." Can Mexico be considered that? How many Central American countries that refugees pass through can be considered safe? I don't know.
Of course, we could just say who cares? America first.Hard sun your question prompted a look-around which left me with tired red eyes, (from reading legalese and diplomatese pdfs) and feeling more than a bit naive.
It seems these "safe country" and "first safe country," and "coming directly from" concepts aren't as simple as I thought.
Apparently, these things have been legally and diplomatically debated and adjudicated for decades, and our own immigration laws apparently, (I didn't go look - enough is enough), address them in some form.
To answer your question about safe, the UNHCR only offers this definition:
"The UN High Commissioner for Refugees stressed that it is not enough that refugees are safe from being returned to persecution in their home country (the non-refoulement-principle). Other requirements in the Refugee Convention must be met, including access to social assistance, healthcare, work and education. The High Commissioner also stressed that a country must abide by the rules of the Convention in practice, not only on paper. Furthermore, an asylum seeker should have a close connection to a country for it to be considered a safe third country. Travelling through a country to reach another is not sufficient.
International cooperation and burden-sharing is a prerequisite for refugee protection, stresses UNHCR, and the country that has received an asylum application has primary responsibility to provide that person with protection. A country should only transfer responsibility for processing an asylum application to another safe country if both have asylum systems of the same standard. And there should be a clear agreement between the two countries about who is responsible for what."
But in essence, the determination of who is a "safe" country" or "safe third country" is just a treaty, pact, or agreement between adjoining countries.
For instance, Canada and the U.S. have an agreement that both are "safe third countries." Norweiga recognizes Russia as a safe third country, EU member states, (as a lot, not individually), recognize Turkey as a safe third country, etc. etc.
Mexico could be recognized as a safe third country if both, (Mexico and the U.S.), just formally agree to say it is.
However, even with that said, I think if we directly conditioned the asylum application criteria on "coming directly from" we would be better able to administer our laws and cope with the detainment problems.
GAGA: Here is the link to the application for asylum. I tried to put myself in the place of a non-English speaking person from a Central American country applying for asylum. I would be totally overwhelmed without the assistance of an English speaking person.
Also, a person applying for asylum has one year from the date they arrive in this country to apply, or they are disqualified. That means the people who are in detention, have one year to apply for asylum. That could be part of Trump's game plan is to run the clock out.
Here is the link to the application and also the instructions to complete the application.
https://www.uscis.gov/i-589Thanks Mike. I saw those and other immigration forms in another link relative to my safe country search.
GA
Yes, your comment jogged some bastion of memory about an issue with German courts and this "first country" concept a couple years ago, or so, when some were attempting to slow the flow of mainly Middle-Eastern immigrants, refuges, and terrorists. Yes, some of them are terrorists, and that sucks for the refugees, and everyone.
"Furthermore, an asylum seeker should have a close connection to a country for it to be considered a safe third country. Travelling through a country to reach another is not sufficient. "
I had no clue that this connection was part of the "safe country" standards. I think ending that would not be in-humane considering the conditions that the people are coming from in order to meet the asylum qualifications. I mean, if I were running from such conditions, I wouldn't care so much if I didn't know anybody where I settled, I'd just be happy to be relatively safe and or have some food and water, etc. Then again the definition of "connection" could be more loose than mine.
"International cooperation and burden-sharing is a prerequisite for refugee protection, stresses UNHCR, and the country that has received an asylum application has primary responsibility to provide that person with protection."
This brings me back to the European situation where I know they held many meetings on how best to deal with their migrant influx. If we did just go to a literal definition of "coming directly from" we would likely risk further alienating allies and such. That may be worth it though, I'm not sure.
If I get the itch, I guess I could do more research on the European situation. I think this would give us a better idea on how we may or may not be able to bend these conventions.
However, it does appear, as you stated, its basically a matter of agreements between nations.
Thanks for the additional info.It seems like there is a run on jogged recollections.
I think I recall reading that at least a couple of EU countries were pushing the same "coming directly from" condition for their asylum-granting criteria.
And since these agreements seem to be for adjoining countries I am not sure I see a reason for our allies to get upset. *shrug
Anyway, you're welcome.
GAYeah, maybe not a good reason for allies to be upset. These jogged recollections, and subsequent fact-finding endeavors, are about all I have to work with, not being an immigration expert.
I was just throwing that out there, thus the "guess it could " and, I'm not even stating the alienation would be justified. In fact, your directly from suggestion may be part of the solution.
For all I know, Mexico may already be considered a "safe country" although it wasn't in 2018:
"In May 2018, representatives of the U.S. and Mexican governments began discussions about whether to recognize each other as safe third countries. If this were to happen, the two countries would enter into a legal arrangement known as a “Safe Third Country Agreement,” or STCA." http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/06/01 … SVJmuhKjcs
That same link also points this out:
"Currently an STCA exists between the United States and Canada. However, whether Canada will continue to recognize the United States as a safe third country is the subject of litigation in Canada.
"A May 2017 lawsuit filed in Canada argues that the United States is no longer a safe third country because current U.S. policies and practices—including denying refugees access to the asylum process at the U.S. southern border, the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers for unlawful entry, the short one-year filing deadline on asylum applications, and the expanded and widespread detention of asylum seekers—put asylum seekers at risk of refoulement; or, at risk of being returned to a country where they fear persecution or torture."
(FYI, just because I use this as a source doesn't mean I entirely agree with the slant..see " But in a cynical attempt to reject asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S. southern border, the Trump administration is working towards a system that forces them to seek asylum in Mexico instead.")
These deals seem very messy. Even if there is no real reason for our allies to get upset, they may....especially with Trump at the helm, and I think the Canadian issue highlights this.
This is another good reason why it's good for Presidents to be at least somewhat likeable to foreign allied leaders...similar to why it's good for deal-making. It's human nature.
I live in Puerto Vallarta Mexico every winter, it is very safe. Yes, there are some cities that have cartel problems as well as the usual crime that can come with being a large city. But much of Mexico is safe. In the pasts months, Mexico has been offering people in the caravans asylum, offering jobs, and citizenship.
I totally agree with you about your suggested changes. Over the weekend I did some reading on the subject. It well appears Trump cut the number of asylum seekers that we would accept last year. He did this due to the asylum seekers backlogs, and our inability to process the asylum seekers that were arriving with. It would certainly help if people could apply in their country of origin. I also agree those seeking asylum should seek it in the first country they cross into. Although I do think for a few years we cut back on how many people we admit due to the need to handle the huge backlog in applicants on the books. Seems it would help if we clear the books for persons that have been waiting in some cases years, having tried to come in a legal way. This would stand to be a deterrent to some that really would not be accepted due to our stringent proof of asylum need. I learned that a high percentage are not accepted due to not being able to prove need.
"The President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions each year. The State Department and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are the primary agencies that assess the viability of different refugee populations for admission, as well as the capacity of U.S. government officials to process them."
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … and-policy
It is an outrageous amount of money. Time to fix our immigration problems, not politic on the results of what not fixing them has done. I have in the last week heard a lot about what horrendous problems we have at the border facilities. And it is clear it has resulted in just what the Dems hoped for, hysteria, pointing fingers. In reality, It is business as usual, don' look at the core of the problem, just stir up the dust, and give no solutions to solve the problems that are causing the overcrowded conditions at these facilities. No solutions only "close the facilities!". Yeah, that will really do the trick...
I appreciate your view. Although the article you provided was just another article that provides campaign promises. And actually not one gave any solutions to the problem at the border other than close the facilities. They all complained about the conditions but ignored the sad situation for many months... In my opinion, this stands to make them look uncaring, hypocritical, downright foolish.
Is it realistic to think we could close these facilities quickly? Is it realistic to think we could even quickly place these children into safe environments? Is it up to our government to continue to take in an abundance of asylum seekers an unaccompanied children that we can not process due to the number alone? This is a crisis that was ignored for many months until it was pulled out as a campaign tool. We need solutions to stop the onslaught of people walking into our country. We need to enforce our current immigration laws, while we work to change our immigration laws. As of now, we have put a bandaid on the problem throwing cash at the problem. This is like an invitation to encourage more migrants to make the trip.
In regards to my comment on spending tax dollars. I should have made myself more clear. I prefer new immigration laws to cut down on what is spent in tax dollars. I think we need to start caring for American citizens before trying to fix the problems of other countries that are causing their citizens to leave... One might see this opinion uncaring. However, I care deeply about our poor, our children going to bed hungry, our mentally ill living in the streets. I won't apologize for caring more about Americans than migrants.
We have always been a caring nation giving billions a year in aid to foreign countries. We have always welcomed asylum seekers, but it's time to enforce the number of asylum seekers we have allocated by our own immigration law.
I note you did not answer my questions in regards to your plan to have migrants build towns. I would hope your plan would have included a way to pay for these towns? I noted you feel that the $750.00 per person that we pay for people that come across our border to request asylum. Do you really feel we could reallocate these fund to building towns? I would think we would have to hope for many millions of migrants to come in so we could justify your plan. It would appear your plan would need to have millions of migrants that we have the burden of supporting? This just makes no logical sense. However, you have the right to feel we need to more or less open borders and settle migrants by giving them land and paying to create towns to incorporate them into the country. Hey, you have a vision, can't fault you for a vision.
My questions
Would you want your tax dollar spent on such a venture? Would you as a citizen be willing to increase the national debt to complete such a venture? Unfortunately, it is us or them... Our infrastructure is crumbling, our education stinks, we have people living in the streets, and children going to bed hungry. And you think it wise to take on such a plan to establish towns for immigrants?"PEOPLEPOWER73 WROTE:
GA and Wilderness: What I have suggested requires planning and organization, and careful thought. As far as not having the skills, they can be taught by experienced out of work construction workers and other manual labor workers, including coal miners and steel workers, who could be on government payroll. (Oh, oh, my bad socialism again.) They can even be given aptitude tests to see what skills they do have. "
I am I to understand you would hire skilled contractors to each migrant to so they can be hired to help fix our crumbling infrastructure, as well as build their own towns? So let's just consider this realistically. Are you aware of the wages skilled tradesmen in construction make? Another thing to consider, do you think these skilled tradesmen would be happy to train immigrants to ultimately become their own competition in the job market? Let's not forget while we train these immigrants we will also have to pay them, and most likely supplement them with welfare to survive while they are building their towns...
So does your plan also provide the land along with all the materials to build these wonderful towns? Oh and then also we will also need to develop the land the towns will be built. Providing waterlines, sewage, gas, and electricity?
Now I must ask once again. Are you willing to severely increase our national debt to build your towns? I venture to say not many Americans would even consider such a plan. Do you have any idea the cost of such a venture?
Perhaps you were just kidding? Although your comments as if you are sound serious.
And to boot, we'll likely have to detain tens of thousands more people soon, so we better buckle down and provide the necessary resources to get the job done.
Would you want your tax dollar spent on such a venture? Would you as a citizen be willing to increase the national debt to complete such a venture? Unfortunately, it is us or them... Our infrastructure is crumbling, our education stinks, we have people living in the streets, and children going to bed hungry. And you think it wise to take on such a plan to establish towns for immigrants?
The conditions are sad, and the conditions need to be addressed.
We certainly need to apply far more resources to these detainment facilities, because it seems as though this stream of people isn't going to stop soon.I saw on the news that a private company is getting $750 per day per child for a facility housing children, yet they cannot afford to give them each a toothbrush. John Kelly sits on the Board of that company.
Why do we continue to pay them for such derelict service? Disgusting.
This situation alone is reason enough to vote out this corrupt and shameful administration.This is reminiscent of the Dubya/ Haliburton no-bid contracts. The same idiots voted for Trump....
It is more than clear there is a horrendous problem with overcrowding at these facilities. The problem has gotten worse over the past 6 months. Congress has known about the growing crisis, and finally, have allocated funds to help alleviate the problem for the time being.
This problem has been growing for several years, and one not blame anyone administration. Trump is clearly trying to take steps to deter more migrants from presenting themselves at the border. he has pleaded with them to present themselves at legal border crossings. He has made his concerns about the need to change our immigration laws, and to enforce the laws we have.
We need problem-solving not just wringing of hands...
Today, a federal judge on Tuesday blocked an order from Attorney General William Barr that stated certain asylum-seekers can be detained indefinitely.
The attorney general had written in the order, issued in April, that asylum-seekers who are able to demonstrate a "credible fear" and are sent to full deportation proceedings cannot be released on bond.
That directive overturned a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2005 that found asylum-seekers could be released on bond if they are able to exhibit they have credible fear of persecution or danger if they leave the U.S.
“I conclude that such aliens remain ineligible for bond, whether they are arriving at the border or are apprehended in the United States,” Barr wrote at the time, invoking a statute included in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman in Washington state wrote that it was "unconstitutional" to deny asylum-seekers a bond hearing while they wait for their asylum claims to be processed.You do realize that being held without bond pending a deportation proceeding is not being held indefinitely? If a person comes across trying to claim assylum, and this individual has a violent background, and may have legitimate ties to cartel activity, the order is now to release them on bond rather than detain them pending proceedings.
Are you sure about that Zack? The information I find doesn't support your thought. Can you point to a source that confirms it?
What I found says that regardless of classification; individual or family unit, male-headed family unit, or unaccompanied minor, if there is a record of a criminal conviction or if there is a record of criminal association, then detention is mandatory pending review and deportation procedures.
GAhttps://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us … ocess.html
Eligibility for Bond - Mandatory Detention
In some instances, an alien is NOT eligible for bond. Section 236c of the Immigration and Nationality Act sets forth several instances when an alien is subject to mandatory detention while in removal proceedings. Among them include: aggravated felonies, suspected terrorism, crimes of moral turpitude and possession of controlled substances (except marijuana less than 30 grams). The law in the link mention previously was initially signed by Bill Clinton - confirmed in this wiki article (not a fan of this a source but it has its own citations) 2nd paragraph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrati … ted_StatesYour links don't support your comment that I replied to Zack, they support my contention that your statement was wrong, why did you offer them?
You said; "If a person comes across trying to claim assylum, and this individual has a violent background, and may have legitimate ties to cartel activity, the order is now to release them on bond rather than detain them pending proceedings."
Both of your links support my contention that your statement is wrong. What am I missing?
ps. I hope you hang around in this forum, maybe we can get some of these misconceptions cleared up.
GAWhat I said was in response to islandbites comment. A federal judge blocked an order that Barr was wanting to hold certain asylum seekers indefinitely. The issue is this isn't a new law, and it applies to bond hearings, not indefinite detentions. The point is that no one is being detained indefinitely, even the most heinous of criminal class have an end to their punishment which they may not outlive.
My point was also that this isn't a Trump or Barr issue, these are laws signed into play by Clinton- allowing detainees to be held at the border no bail/bond.Glad you cleared that up Zack. That is different from your comment that I quoted and replied to.
GAThis is from Bloomberg News and is a different perspective on the Southern Border.
Why did Mexicans stop coming in large numbers? The answer isn’t a reduction in violence. Since 2006, the Mexican drug war has claimed tens of thousands of lives every year. Instead, it’s probably because of the economy. With a gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity of $20,602 in 2018, Mexico is now a comfortably upper-middle-class country, with standards of living approaching East European levels. With a robust manufacturing industry, including high-value products such as cars and airplanes, Mexico’s economy is on a stable long-term footing. For many Mexicans, it’s therefore simply not worth it to make the dangerous trek to the U.S. just to do low-wage manual labor.
The same solution can work for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. These countries have very high levels of gang violence, but so does Mexico. The key difference is that the Central American countries, unlike Mexico, are still very poor:
Waiting to Prosper
2018 gross domestic product per capita
Source: International Monetary Fund
Guatemala and El Salvador are right around the point where migration pressure tends to peak — in other words, as these countries get richer, fewer people will want to leave. This means that boosting the economies of these countries should reduce the flows of migrants. (Honduras is a little trickier, since it’s still poorer than the peak migration level, so it will probably take longer before prosperity helps to reduce the outflow.)
To boost the economies of the Northern Triangle countries, the key is investment and trade. The U.S. should immediately give major tax credits for any U.S. company that invests in Guatemala, El Salvador or Honduras. It should also eliminate tariffs on products from these countries. Additionally, the U.S. should work with the governments of Northern Triangle countries to improve infrastructure and education, and establish supply chains from those countries to the U.S.
This policy — exactly the opposite of what the Trump administration has done — would be a win-win for everyone involved. It would stanch the flow of desperate families accumulating at the U.S. border, and it would improve the lives of citizens of some of the hemisphere’s poorest countries. To fix the border crisis, fix Central America.You make a good case that searching for asylum as a refugee is not why they come, and should not be granted asylum as a result. Which pretty much fits for the large majority of aliens wishing to enter the country.
That is one perspective Mike. I think it is an optimistic one.
I agree that the reduction in Mexican illegal immigrants can be attributed to Mexico's growing economy, but I don't see the quoted production factors as being a realistic option for the Northern Triangle.
But that is just an uninformed opinion based on recollections and perceptions. For instance, I think it is the auto industry that has greatly contributed to Mexico's recent prosperity. I don't see how any Northern Triangle country could steal Mexico's positive attractions for that industry.
GABettering conditions for everyone in the Western Hemisphere is a great goal and is likely part of the equation to reduce immigration. I know, until Trump, free trade was one of the conservative rallying cries for strong economies--and not really disparaged by US liberals.
However, in terms of asylum seekers, we are not supposed to be granting asylum status simply do to people coming from bad economies.
CNN's Jeffert Toobin lays it out clearly here: "It is worth remembering that asylum is different from economic migrants," Toobin said on CNN's "New Day." "You are not allowed to come to this country just because you want a better life. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but asylum is for people who have a well-founded fear of persecution." https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4176 … he-us-just
This may have been disucussed here previously, but I think it's pertinent here. If we make it clear that you're not getting asylum based on solely economic factors, then maybe we will get more of the legitimate asylum claims....persecution, violence, natural disasters, etc. https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … lum/asylum
On this one specific immigration matter, I think Trump may have it right.
Ending the war on drugs would likely lessen the number of qualified asylum seekers and eliminate the need for the dealers to come here for business. Yes, the majority of refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers are good people, but I also know how the system is abused by criminals."If we make it clear that you're not getting asylum based on solely economic factors, then maybe we will get more of the legitimate asylum claims....persecution, violence, natural disasters, etc. "
I don't think there is any doubt we will get more asylum seekers, but question the "legitimate" part. When we have people coaching how to lie to meet the criteria, what to say to get through the loopholes, etc. I don't see it as "legitimate". Just additional load on us to handle the influx (and I see that as part of the problem as well; when caravans are built by people with no iron in the fire, simply to overload our system, there is a problem and the number of "legitimate" seekers is not it.)
Interesting discussion. At this point, I can only add that the type of programs Mike is suggesting would indeed bring some costs, but many of those costs would surely go right back into the American economy.
For example, we pay the trainers decent wages, we get back some of it in payroll taxes, and the benefits of all the other cash that the trainer and laborer jobs will pump back into the economy. I think people often overlook that there's a big difference in the types of government spending.
Money that results in the lower and middle class having more money means more money being spent. This is not akin to say, rebuilding Iraq and having the vast majority of those funds being spent on the infamous no-bid Haliburton contracts where most of that said cash winds up in executive foreign bank accounts.
"Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops. en contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday." https://readersupportednews/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war
As Mike stated, some ingenuity would be needed. In addition, some degree of accountability would be warranted, but I think this is, at least in part, the type of thinking we need.
Also, to one of MizBeJabbers' END THE WAR ON DRUGS. That SHOULD be an easy one.
Dierks Bentley and Rupaul can do it...I mean we did elect Trump and wouldn't those two appeal to a wide variety of voters? Wouldn't this ticket please both the left and the right...but should it be Rupaul/Bentley? That would be the problem. Oh, the mind-numbing intricacies of garnering American voter support are too much for me."Money that results in the lower and middle class having more money means more money being spent."
Unfortunately, there would be no money for the lower OR middle classes - virtually all of it (except the original round of training) would go to foreign citizens...with much of going back to their relatives still in their own country.I think if something like this were done correctly, it would provide plenty of money directly to American lower and middle class pockets. It could be taken much beyond the original training, into supervisory roles, etc. Of course, this is where that ingenuity and accountability would come in.
Yes, money from immigrants flows back to other nations but I see direct evidence every day of that money being put into American Midwestern economy. They shop in our stores, eat in our restaurants, pay utilities, etc. I don't know the exact figures on this and I'm sure there's some numbers out there we could throw around and argue about. However, I just have to go with what I think many of us see on this one. Immigrants, even illegals, put a good amount of money into our economy.
IMO This is another one of those issues where it seems like Americans have to choose one side or the other...and the real word solutions just don't fit into those boxes.Trump wants to build a wall that already exists for the most part. But to him, he thinks he is building his wall (promise made, promise kept). What it really needs is repair and upgrading with high tech sensors and funding for more personnel.
The Great Wall of China was built by the people and it had places along the wall where the guards lived with their families. Instead of putting these people in detention camps, why can't we have them live along the wall and guard it like the Chinese did?
They can speak the language of those who try to cross the border and it will gives them some purpose. This is just for openers, but it is one step that could be taken, while we figure out what to do with them. They could be taught English as well, so that they could be assimilated into our society. It would put school teachers to work. Of course the government would have to pay the teacher's salaries, but the return on investment would be a win/win situation.
But when you have an us and them mentality, this becomes a threat to the "us people." We need a president and an administration that thinks outside the box, not one who's only concern is how to make himself look better to get re-elected by dividing the country into fake news and artificial fox news. Trump even uses fox news to shape his policy. Sean Hannity even has an office in the White House, but he is not an official government employee."Instead of putting these people in detention camps, why can't we have them live along the wall and guard it like the Chinese did? "
And put the wolves to guarding the sheep flock. You HAVE to know how that sounds, and the value of it.
No, PP, unlimited immigration and open borders for anyone wanting to feed at the American trough is not the answer.You are pulling our leg aren't you Mike. "The Great Wall of China"? This is satire, right?
You had me going for a minute there ;-)
GAGA: Nope...If you have a better idea let's hear it.
My first thought would be one that has been mentioned before; change our immigration laws to comport with the Internation Asylum laws. An asylum seeker that just crosses our borders seeking an asylum claim must be coming directly from the country they are seeking asylum from.
If our borders aren't the first border they cross trying to escape the tragedies of their country, then they are not asylum-seeking refugees, (the first safe country border they cross would meet their asylum needs), then they are economic refugees.
It is as simple as that. If they are economic refugees then where is the logic of making then wards of our nation and putting them in front of the refugees that have followed our normal immigration processes - just because they were able to get across our borders?
I understand that accusations of cruel heartlessness and "That's not what America is" will follow, but the only other choice is either open borders or Trump's wall. I am not a supporter of either of those choices.
If compassion rather than reality was to become the new touchstone of our immigration policy, I could live with that too. Just expand our legal immigration processes and immigration numbers so that more economic refugees would be admitted - as many as you think we can economically and socially handle.
Even with that policy, is there any limit to the number you would accept Mike?
GA
Let us first agree that a picture is worth a thousand words, and remember that assumption is a word, lies are made of words, and every badly politically motivated individual uses their words. The pictures submitted show people being detained. That is all they show. The words accompanying them have so little value to me as anyone can place any caption with any photo and if later outted for flat out lying, claim that it was an editorial error.
The photo showing all of the detainees in "pod 2" for all we know is nothing more than an initial holding cell that processes all of those inhabiting it within four hours. The photo showing the encampments outside, while not something anyone can say is a favorable condition, is certianly more favorable than the journeys they went on to get to where they are. Some come across packed into the back of semi trailers with no AC, ventilation, water, bathrooms, or room to sit down. Some walk thousands of miles through desert land, mountainous areas, and sleep on the ground everyday, no running water, no roof, little to no food, all because they believe that they will be able to get past immigration, claim asylum, cross the river, or hide once they get here. These conditions are horrid, but to pretend like what they have in detention, no matter how unpleasant it may seem to us is far better than what they previously endured. They have access to emergency medical care, they have access to water, they have access to proper toilets, they have food. If you don't believe me then ask yourself how only twenty four of the 593,000 detainees from October 2018 to June 2019 died? Remember these are people that are no different than you in me in the fact that they have health issues like diabetes that require insulin (which must be refrigerated and it can be difficult to keep a few month supply of clean needles hidden from junkies as well-they sometimes want to go north to the US too.) Some of the immigrants have drug use issues that if bad enough can kill if you are not weaned properly sometimes even with intervention.
If the conditions were so deplorable, there would be far more dead. The current average detention is right about a week in length, and this is a known risk when they leave their home to come here without filing the proper paperwork.
I also feel that prisons are too comfortable as they are currently as well. As prisons have become more and more comfortable, the recidivism rates have increased with it. This is because the conditons in a prison are more favorable for someone who is living a hard life. It beats being constantly hungry and unable to visit the doctor.
If you honestly believe that the best solution would be to open our borders, I would propose that we simply offer the necessary transportation for anyone caught to be dropped off in Canada. Their healthcare is free from what I hear, and supposedly our issue of immigration is only one of race. I'm sure Canada would welcome them with open arms and poo poo us while they did it.
There are legitimate solutions to the issues we face regarding immigration, and it is a solvable issue at that.
Related Discussions
- 220
Solutions to the Immigration Detention Camps
by ga anderson 5 years ago
Mike, (peoplepower73), is the impetus for this topic, but I hope all will participate.Let me state what I think are some 'givens':1) The number of unaccompanied minors and family units with minors crossing our borders is at crisis proportions.2) The numbers of minors and family units with minors...
- 38
Obama Administration REFUSES to PROTECT OUR BORDERS
by MikeNV 12 years ago
$10 Billion per month to spend in Afghanistan per month "fighting terrorists". How many people know the cost of a Gallon of fuel to the military in Afghanistan is $13 per Gallon?30,000 AMERICAN TROOPS on the South Korea/North Korea Border.And the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REFUSES to...
- 107
My Criticism of the Trump administration
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
As most of you know, I support many of Trump’s initiatives and I defend him here on hubpages when he is unfairly criticized by the media and others.You may also know I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election.Now, after over one year in office, and the signing of the latest Omnibus...
- 74
Migrants Coming To A City Near You - If You Offer Sanctuary
by Sharlee 12 months ago
A Texas mayor is sounding the alarm amid a dramatic spike in migrants crossing the U.S. border, saying his city has reached a "breaking point.""The city of El Paso only has so many resources and we have come to... a breaking point right now," El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser, a...
- 16
Biden's Immigration Plan -- More Children Now Living In "Cages"
by Sharlee 3 years ago
CARRIZO SPRINGS, Tex. — Dozens of migrant children boarded vans this week for the trip down a road to a former camp that was used by oil field workers. This is the first migrant child facility opened under the Biden administration as an emergency facility, a vestige of the Trump...
- 29
US Manufacturing
by Don W 7 years ago
So one of the goals of the new administration is to "bring back manufacturing jobs". A laudable goal.But if the cost of manufacturing something in a foreign country and shipping it to the US, is cheaper than manufacturing it in the US, why would a company bother to manufacture in the US?...