Is this a Common Sense Solution to the Southern Border?
On the same day Trump confirms to the whole world that he's truly a racist, his administration comes up with a policy that mirrors international norms. In it, those seeking asylum must make their claims in the first country they arrive in. It does have exceptions, which we all know this administration would likely deter people from using. This policy could appease the rabid Trump supporters while also not spending billions that could be used for our own infrastructure.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-immigr … 12511.html
Thoughts?It seems in line with international law and with our agreements. It might help take us off the pedestal of the world's caretaker. It will stop the fiasco at the border with people fleeing poverty being trained to ask for asylum in the US in an effort to exploit loopholes in our system.
All in all it seems quite reasonable.The common sense solution to the southern border is to REMOVE and Imprison the 73 year old mentally warped orange abomination in our oval office:
That makes perfect sense. I can see the headlines now, across Central American newspapers.
'Trump ya no es presidente de los Estados Unidos. Desembale sus bolsas. Todos pueden quedarse en casa ahora.'English damn it, English. Damn foreigners.
GA
It sure does make perfect sense, REMOVE the disgusting orange cancer that caused the humanitarian crisis to begin with and ship him and his entire grifter family back to RUSSIA where they belong: Let Vladimir Putin kick em around a little before he sends them to the gulag, if they're lucky:
We all know your position, Jake. If you're going to post the same thing over and over again without providing much in terms of information, I'd prefer you did it in other people's threads.To my knowledge, these are public forums Valeant, try not to complain just because you disagree with a comment:
You make a false assumption that I disagree that Trump should be removed. When you post your childish insults, repeatedly, you get annoying fast.
Not nearly as annoying, childish or boring as the white nationalist alt right hate that is spewed around here daily: Talk about repetitious: There was actually some weirdo in here earlier who said immigrants should be stopped by constructing a crocodile filled moat: Where were you when this Trump follower said that ??
But I guess you still don't understand who caused the CRISIS at the border which of course was Bozo Trump and how it will NEVER be addressed in a realistic way until he's IMPRISONED: There is no solution until he's OUT:You act like the constant inflow of immigrants across the southern border is not an issue to many Americans. It's been a problem since long before Trump took office. The point of this post was to discuss a new policy initiative that might be some middle ground between both sides of the aisle. All you did was come in here, throws insults at Trump, and hijack the topic to talk about impeachment. If you're going to vent, please do it somewhere else is my point. If you want to to talk this topic, great.
I'll admit that I was shocked someone on the left would see the reasonableness of this. I agree that it is a fair and even handed approach to a long term problem which has gotten out of control.
Yes, it is a fair and even handed approach.
But it will be deemed "racist" because very few caucasians will be turned back by the plan. It will be deemed "inhumane" because we don't supply support for anyone wishing in. It will be "cruel" because children are not exempt from it. And it will do nothing to stop or slow illegal border crossings; instead it will likely increase them. Now that we're closing a loophole, how about that wall?
lol, it's funny how every time I STRIKE a Nerve of TRUTH about the dangerous clown in our oval office trying desperately to dismantle our crumbling USA, nationalists around here loose their minds: lol, If you live here in the USA, exactly how did this "ISSUE" impact you personally Valeant? Immigrants crossed the border to wash your car? Or clean your hotel room? or pick your blueberries? Or cook your ham and eggs for breakfast at the local diner? ALL of which saved you money, a POSITIVE impact on our economy because they performed these jobs that no American wants at a fraction of the pay and that's the cold hard TRUTH regardless of what Fox Fake News tells you:
So I guess you're with wilderness, GA, Live to Learn and every other nationalist around here who will be standing in line right next to the Undocumented Mexicans next time there's a job opening for "Latrine Cleaner" at the local Holiday Inn? Get real, and learn the truth about what's going on out here instead of propagating the false narrative that there's some kind of "Border Crisis" other than the "Humanitarian Crisis" that Bozo Trump himself CREATED:
The ONLY CRISIS right now is in our oval office period, and it demands our IMMEDIATE Attention to save whats remaining of our crumbling country:Jake, that whole post displays how out of touch with reality you really are. Using terms like nationalist and a claim that I'm a fan of Fox News. Have you even read any of these forums?
Or that because I would support a policy that is used internationally and costs us nothing that addresses an immigration issue facing our country somehow turns me into some far-right person. God forbid we try and meet in the middle and solve some issues. You keep on staying over there on the furthest part of the left, I'll be here nearer to the middle with policies that can actually win elections.
I think you're a joke and if you want to continue down this road, I can guarantee you it'll get us both banned.
Everyone knows if I'm anything Valeant, it's "IN TOUCH With Reality" and I always speak the truth, and the reality is there is NO Middle Ground for any substantial legislation with a delusional nationalist idiot roaming around in our oval office combined with a creepy looking scarecrow nut case like "Mutt" McConnell BLOCKING ALL Bills from the house: Anyone out there who truly believes "Middle Ground" can be struck with "Mutt" McConnell on anything is living in DREAM Land right nest to Disneyland:
Donald Trump will serve hard time in prison soon for his border atrocities and thank GOD for that:
The reality is there will be no HealthCARE for ALL until ALL CONservative White Nationalist nazi lovers are REMOVED from our political system in 2020: there will be no solution to the humanitarian crisis of Bozo Trump's making, no minimum pay raises or raises of any kind until republicans are REMOVED and replaced with Progressive DEMS: Furthermore, under this dangerous clown show called the illegitimate trump administration, our environment has degraded to the point where there probably is no return, and if that doesn't alarm everyone nothing will:
THAT"S REALITY:Hi Valeant. I agree 100%. Trump knows his best chance in 2020 is painting the entire Democratic party as extremists. The inability to support anything that Trump initiates or backs, even when it makes sense, plays right into the hands of that Trump 2020 strategy. Most Americans want reasonable action on immigration, and I agree with you that this rule certainly seems reasonable considering the situation.
hard sun, usually you're on target but seriously, I don't know if you could possibly be more wrong on this one because the overwhelming MAJORITY of Progressive DEMS and Americans for that matter, want this charlatan clown REMOVED ASAP before this country realizes COMPLETE Collapse which is coming soon:
And there he goes again on his impeachment rant. We're trying to have a discussion on this one immigration policy's pros and cons. And this clown has to come in and hijack the conversation with incorrect information. None of the actual polling backs up the claim that 'the overwhelming majority of progressive dems and Americans...want Trump removed,' no matter how many capital letters you use.
LOL 46% approval rate, and most of what's left don't want him removed by force.
Your "overwhelming MAJORITY" is just another figment of your overactive imagination. As is the "COMPLETE Collapse", with the economy ticking along as it hasn't for decades. (Though it might collapse from a lack of leadership as virtually every Democrat reneges on their responsibility in favor of extreme partisan politics.)
But carry on, Jake - you DO add a bit of levity to the forums.C'mon Wilderness, you were doing so well and then had to throw your own overactive imagination about how the economy fares under Democrats. Deficits come down, job growth increases, unemployment numbers fall, stock markets improve. These are the facts from the last twenty years of Democratic economics.
For sure deficits came down under Obama...after he set a record for one year! Unemployment figures fell...to much higher than we see now. Markets improved...to far less than the records we're setting now. These are the whole story rather than a snapshot pretending to compare to results under Trump but not actually doing so.
But in any case I addressed none of that; only the complete refusal to cooperate or compromise on anything from the White House. Total, 100% partisan politics has become the way of our legislature, from both sides. I mentioned only Democrats because at this point they are the ones holding up any real effort to solve problems (notably immigration). Republicans aren't helping much either, but Democrats are using the whole fiasco and crises only for a political power play against the White House.And yet, you ignore the way Bush (with some help from Clinton policies) mis-managed the economy that led to the reason we needed the record deficit. Much higher unemployment? 4.7 is much higher than 3.7? A five-point drop is not better than a one-point drop in your mind? Markets improved and they have continued to go up at the exact same level as we saw during Obama years. Saying Trump is responsible for a trend he inherited is ridiculously false. Blaming Obama for something not of his making is ignorant at best.
You are right that it's partisan politics. But it's been this way since McConnell publicly stated he wouldn't work with Obama to try and limit him to one term. Didn't work out, but I'd say the problem started there. And ignoring how the GOP blocked a bi-partisan immigration reform bill in 2013 is to ignore the culpability of both parties in this respect. Far-wing politics has been dominant since long before Trump took over. But to throw the blame solely on the Democrats for playing the same game the GOP ran for eight years is to ignore history.
Once everyone stands up to their own politicians for playing the game that way, then we can all talk. For me, this thread's topic is a willingness to move toward the middle and back a solution to an issue important to conservatives. This one seemed the most cost-effective, had a basis common sense that people should be making claims of asylum right away, and wasn't inhumane in the way that caging and separating families after they reach us certainly is."4.7 is much higher than 3.7?"
Yes. Approximately 27% With 100,000,000 workers in the country that's about 27,000,000 additional people out of work.
I'd also note that your "5 point drop" (which never happened as we never saw double digit unemployment) occurred after the biggest recession since the Great Depression. And that the additional point happened during a period of good numbers, resulting in the lowest in decades.
Same thing with markets; Obama saw a big increase...after the largest drop since the depression. Trump took it further, keeping it going even after it had recovered, and more, from its drop.
Neither of these were attributable only to the president, however. No president operates in a vacuum, and most things must pass congress first. Trump was perhaps different in that just being elected gave a jump start to both unemployment and market, but he followed that with a good deal of MAGA rhetoric and some action to back it up. We haven't had a president that actually put the country first in quite a while, preferring to bow to the world and accept whatever world opinion demands of us.
Oh, I don't limit it to one party: I very plainly said it is a game played by both. I also plainly said the only reason I picked on Democrats was because they are the stumbling block to getting anything done at this time.
But it's getting worse all the time. Now we have legislators (state level) walking out of their job because they can't get their way. We have almost total deadlock in our congress with almost no one willing to cross the line and vote what they think is right - far more important to stay in the good graces of the party and get re-elected next election.
It is pitiful, it is disgusting, it is immoral and unethical. It is also what we the people have created when we demand our so-called "leaders" vote for what WE want rather than what the nation needs.
Finally, yes we are on the same page about Trump's plan for the border. And don't forget that my original post in this mini-thread (about Trump's approval) was more of a laugh at the ridiculous claims by our good Jake than anything else. They can't be taken seriously and my comment was never intended to start another discussion. Just point how silly the claims were."Oh, I don't limit it to one party: I very plainly said it is a game played by both. I also plainly said the only reason I picked on Democrats was because they are the stumbling block to getting anything done at this time.
But it's getting worse all the time. Now we have legislators (state level) walking out of their job because they can't get their way. We have almost total deadlock in our congress with almost no one willing to cross the line and vote what they think is right - far more important to stay in the good graces of the party and get re-elected next election.
It is pitiful, it is disgusting, it is immoral and unethical. It is also what we the people have created when we demand our so-called "leaders" vote for what WE want rather than what the nation needs."
^5
GAHere are the official stats from the Department of Labor. But you keep telling me how it never happened and the 5.3 point improvement is nothing compared to Trump lowering it one point.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
October 2009 - 10.0
Left office Nov. 2016 - 4.7
Difference - 5.3
As for us being on the same page about Trump's plan for the border, that's a stretch. I'm on board with this one policy, but pretty much disagree with his xenophobic stances in most other forms.
Talk about INACCURATE Comments: someone should inform wilderness that Bozo Trump has a 46% approval rating from Rassmussen and Rassmussen ONLY which is a republican leaning SHAM Poll: The majority of other POLLS are much LOWER as usual but I guess Valeant doesn't mind if nationalists post inaccurate news:
He's spending MILLIONS on social media according to reports and he's still STAGNATING in the ratings: It's not surprise, I saw one of his pathetic ads on another social media site and all he does is whine and cry about the so called "Main Street Media" out to get him: PATHETIC:Your comment that stated that a majority of Americans want Trump removed is about as false as it gets. You actually said that up above. Your assumptions that Americans feel the same way you do is completely undermined by the actual stats: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-t … s-n1029656
And an approval rating is far different from wanting someone impeached. I'm sorry in your warped reality you cannot seem to grasp the difference and you're throwing that number out as some basis to make your false claims.
Talk about the TRUTH and sorry you seem to be allergic to it: According to investigative reports, every Undocumented Immigrant who crossed our border regardless of method and held a job from 1985 thru 1994, actually made MORE money than Big Mouth, and they actually paid taxes to support this country, unlike Bozo who was apparently broke and was probably busy cooking up his "Trump University Scam" to TAKE money from our vulnerable senior citizens according to court documents: PATHETIC, Unlawful and Unacceptable: Who should be DEPORTED ?? Who should go back to their home country ??
Sorry Valeant, but Bozo Trump's disapproval rating is about at 52% which represents a MAJORITY who want him GONE ASAP before the USA Collapses Completely: I hope you understand the ONLY reason WHY a majority don't want him IMPEACHED is because they understand that corrupt, Trump apologist named "Mutt" McConnell and most of the Communist Russian Loving Republican Senators will NEVER Remove this abomination from our oval office via impeachment because of their perverted, unholy loyalty to a strange looking cult leader who is an national embarrassment to the USA:
If there were a Progressive Majority in the senate, which there will be after the 2020 election, you can be sure the MAJORITY of Americans would be in favor of IMPEACHMENT because they would understand the end result would be Bozo's ultimate REMOVAL and Imprisonment:
Calling me names makes me want to respond on the same level as the person name calling.
I know you are, but what am I?
I also think it sounds reasonable. We have to start somewhere. President Obama deported many immigrants and immigration has been a long standing problem in our country. Other countries are very strict about immigration. Canada wants people to have a college degree and to be sure anyone coming in is an asset to their country. While I know America has different values and was born out of an idea of being a haven for anyone, we need to fix a lot of problems here. Less border issues would be a start. Ideas have to change with the times and circumstances.
I think the immigrants on the border in cages needs to be addressed, but that's another forum.
It will stop the fiasco at the border with people fleeing poverty being trained to ask for asylum in the US in an effort to exploit loopholes in our system.
". . . a policy that mirrors international norms."
Does that indicate you support this new rule?
I do. In effect, it is the same as the insertion of "directly from" into our immigration laws that would also comply with international law.
hard sun introduced this announcement in the solutions to concentration camps thread.
GAThis rule should help cut down on migrants that do not have a legitimate claim. It may work as a deterrent, and give our government a chance to handle the growing backlog of asylum claims. I am for it.
Although, it will never see the light of day, now will it? Trump has put forth several good concepts that would help with our current crisis, all have been pretty much shot down quickly. Trump has been trying for two years to express the cost of the problem at the border and the costs of our failing immigration laws. Perhaps, it's time to listen and respect the changes needed.
" rabid Trump supporters "... Why the need to make such a derogatory comment? I guess it's OK for some to make such remarks, but not others. One asks why the divide?Rabid (adj.) - having or proceeding from an extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something. Considering the entirety of the GOP just jumped on board with Trump's racism, it seemed more than appropriate.
Rabid (of an animal) affected with rabies.
synonyms: rabies-infected, mad, foaming at the mouth, hydrophobic
"she was bitten by a rabid dog"
I have never noted the president to say or do anything that could be considered racist? I guess we have a different concept in regards to what racism is.Trump told the four freshman Congresswomen of color to "go back where they came from." That is racist. They are American citizens. He is showing his age, maybe in his Father's time people still spoke like that.
I don't approve of the president's statement. I did not find the context racist. I found it baiting. I don't think Trump would have put it any other way, lets' say one of the congresswomen were from England or Germany. I think he was pointing out your countries are in need of change, go help your countries of origin. he even then said, and then come back. I think he did insult them by inferring they need more experience. And yes, in that way he was showing his age.
I respect your opinion and certainly can see many have adopted your view.I believe these women are US citizens. So why point out the countries of their ancestry are in need of change? How does that help us? I'm just curious, I respect your opinion too.
Thank you for asking that question... I in no way condone or appreciate those tweets. They were uncalled for, insulting to the women and their countries of origin. I was sickened by the chants "send them back". In this situation, I believe both the four women and the president were at fault. They have been baiting each other for weeks. In my opinion, they were all playing in the mud. And it is very apparent they all have come out dirty. I can see no possible way to defend the president or these women.
I did not find Trump's comments racist, and I am just downright tired of the race card being played. His comments were insulting, and I am sure we can agree no one wants to hear such rhetoric from the president.
Clearly you need a new dictionary to understand that rabid has a variety of definitions. I'm sorry my use of such big words was beyond your comprehension.
And apparently you lack any minority friends. If you had any, you could have asked one if that recent tweet by trump was a racist attack. You could ask if birtherism is racist. You could ask if his refusal to accept that the Central Park 5 are innocent is racist. All would get an affirmative.
I understand the principle, but I'm confused about the details.
Presumably Guatemala would be one of the countries people from Central American countries like Honduras, El Salvador etc. travel through to get to the US, but:
"Thousands of Guatemalans migrated to the USA through Mexico in an effort to escape the high levels of inequality and violence affecting marginalized groups. UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, said that between January and October 18,764 Guatemalans sought asylum in other countries. Unaccompanied children from Guatemala comprised the biggest group of arrivals apprehended at the US border."
https://www.amnesty.nl/content/uploads/ … pdf?x32866
So thousands of people from "marginalized groups" are fleeing Guatemala because of violence, but people fleeing from Honduras and El Salvador must seek asylum in Guatemala? How does that work?People fleeing Honduras and El Salvador would not have to seek asylum in Guatemala according to this rule:
"an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country."
So, this also gives them Belize and Mexico to apply for asylum on there way to the US.I'm still confused. And the fact so many people are saying this seems like a sensible solution makes me think I'm missing something. What am I missing?
The population of Belize is around 374,681. It's GDP per capita is around $4,905. The population of the US is around 322 million. It's GDP per capita is around $59,531(1)(2)
The US government doesn't want to take any more asylum seekers because it costs too much. And the number of people being detained in the immigration system outstrips current capacity, leading to appalling conditions in detention facilities.
So the proposed solution is to divert asylum seekers to a country with ten times less resources available, and a population almost a thousand times smaller?
To put that into perspective, if next month 1,000 people went to Belize to request asylum, that would represent a 0.3% increase in the county's population. That's the equivalent of 966,000 hitting the US border in a month. For comparison the number of people the CBP made enforcement actions against on the border for the whole of FY2018 was 683,178 (3)
Relative to population size, it would only take 62 people per month for Belize to get to the equivalent level the US is currently dealing with, which is overwhelming the country's immigration system.
So isn't it obvious that diverting asylum seekers to Belize in any significant numbers would cause a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions there, as that country's immigration system has even less resources available than ours?
Again what am I missing?
Also, the State Department's own report on Belize from 2018 says:
"Human rights issues included allegations of unlawful killings by security officers; allegations of corruption by government officials; crimes involving violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) persons; trafficking in persons; and child labor."(4)
So marginalized groups fleeing violent persecution in Honduras, El Salvador etc. are to first seek asylum in a country where marginalized groups are being violently persecuted?
Again, is there some important aspect to this I have misunderstood?
I'm struggling to see how creating a humanitarian disaster in a country less able to cope, is a sensible solution, unless "sensible solution" is defined as anything that moves the problem somewhere else.
If there is some vital component to this plan I have missed that makes it all makes sense, I'd be grateful if someone could shared it.
(1) Belize and US Populations
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explo … ;ind=false
(2) Belize and US GDP per Capita
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explo … ;ind=false
(3) CBP Enforcement Statistics
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp- … statistics
(4) State Department report on Belize
https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-coun … practices/What about Mexico? I'm thinking Mexico could likely have some areas for asylum seekers. At any rate, we simply cannot be responsible for every Central or South American that wants or needs to flee there nation. Germany finally realized this and thus garnered an agreement with Turkey. The rise of nationalism/isolationism is fueled by over-immigration of the type that happened in Europe. So, anything that reduces the flow of illegal immigration into the US could be said to have far-reaching harm reduction. Sometimes the lesser of two evils must be determined, and sometimes putting America first is what may be best for the world. I hate using that phrase, but, it fits here. These matters are not going to be morally black and white, as so many aren't.
[EDIT]". . . sometimes putting America first is what may be best for the world"
Is creating a humanitarian disaster in Mexico, Belize and Guatemala putting America first? Or is it a sure-fire way to increase the number of migrants trying to flee from those places?
"What about Mexico? I'm thinking Mexico could likely have some areas for asylum seekers."
But that implies Mexico isn't already doing something. Don't buy-in to that false narrative.
"Mexico’s immigration enforcement data says that from January to April 2019, Mexico sent around 37,000 Central Americans back to their countries, mostly to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala . . . In 2018, Mexican authorities returned close to 110,000 Central Americans to their countries. That number was 78,300 in 2017; 151,000 in 2016; and 177,000 in 2015."(1)
A Congressional Research report in 2018 said that Mexico:
" . . . implemented a Southern Border Plan that established naval bases on Mexico’s rivers, security cordons north of the country’s borders with Guatemala and Belize, and a drone surveillance program. Unarmed agents from the National Migration Institute (INM), the only Mexican agency with authority to detain migrants, increased operations along train routes and at bus stations. INM improved the infrastructure at border crossings and created mobile highway checkpoints"(2)
President Obrador has announced plans to . . .
". . . invest $25 billion in southern Mexico that would create jobs for migrants. He has also pledged $30 million to support a U.N. regional development plan for Central America; Mexico and others have long maintained that the best way to stop illegal immigration from Central America is to address the insecurity and lack of opportunities there".
Also, remember Trump's Migrant Protection Protocol that force people to wait their asylum decisions in Mexico:
". . . as of June 2019 15,000 migrants have been returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protection Protocols to await their immigration decisions".
So the idea that Mexico isn't already playing a significant part part reducing migration to the US is just not true. But negative effects are already starting to be re seen:
"With U.S. border officials limiting the number of migrants accepted daily for asylum screening at U.S. ports of entry, Mexican border cities, some of which have high rates of violent crime, are now sheltering thousands of migrants with little support from either federal government".
Again swamping Mexico with even more people to deal with will only create a humanitarian disaster.
The problem is not that Mexico is not doing enough. The problem is that we are currently mismanaging the situation. Surely the most sensible solution would be to stop doing that.
(1) What Mexico has done to curb illegal immigration to United States, a look beyond Trump’s tweets
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … tion-unit/
(2) Mexico’s Immigration Control Efforts
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10215.pdfI think America has a duty to get Mexico to do all it can just as Mexico has a duty to get the US to do all it can. This seems to be how it worked out in Europe .
In fact, it seems to be how things work with humans in general. Of course, we attempt to be fair in our dealings, but, at the same time we also want to get the best deal we can get while treating everyone at least as fair as possible. That's how I haggle anyway. We cannot go so far into being the savior of the world that we do the other's jobs for them, even if they are allies, and especially if they are not so much allies.
There is a balance to everything. I see this similar to when the uber wealthy get the under-privileged to make their arguments for them. It throws off the balance.
As Jim Davin agrees though, once again, there are no easy answers.It's not so much about being the "savior of the world". I think it's in the the country's interest not to create a massive humanitarian disaster in countries right next to the border. It think it's a recipe for more people crossing the southern border not less.
Could Mexico do more? Perhaps, but surely not much. What would be more helpful is if we stopped mismanaging the issue and started doing what needs to be done.Do you really believe that if we enforce our, and international, law, effectively closing the border to illegal traffic, the result will be additional traffic, legal or not, across that border? Can you expand on that though?
As far as Mexico doing more, how about closing their own southern border, coupled with refusal to encourage/support those that make it across?
And finally, how did this Massive humanitarian disaster go from being caused by massive numbers of people attempting to violate our laws to being OUR fault? What have WE done to create it (outside of following our as well as international laws)?Good grief, this is not rocket science. The countries this plan wants people to claim asylum in are full of people already fleeing because of violent persecution according to the government's own reports. That's one of the things causing people to leave them and head to the US. Now add a massive humanitarian crises in those countries, and what do you think the result will be? Do you think it will make people less or more likely to head to the southern border? Just think about it.
You don't think this situation has been mismanaged on our side? The aim of "zero tolerance" approach was to reduce the number of people crossing the border illegally by prosecuting everyone who did. Has it wilderness? Are you able to report a significant reduction in illegal border crossings? Or are there in fact more people crossing the border illegally now than they were before trump's failed policies started? Go ahead and find the stats, then tell me the answer.
I don't think I'd say we'd bear sole responsibility for any humanitarian crisis right next to our border. I'm also not saying we can't do more...like just stop the war on drugs, maybe send people to act as liaisons to help other nations take in refugees. We could do such things at less of a price tag than what we do now, and they would likely be more effective IMO. I don't have the immigration issue panacea. I'm just stating I think this proposal is realistic and a step in the right direction for America.
"I don't think I'd say we'd bear sole responsibility for any humanitarian crisis right next to our border."
It's not just a matter of responsibility. It's a practical issue. If you funnel hundreds of thousands of people into countries so poor they're officially categorized as "developing", which are themselves rife with corruption and violent persecution, it will be a disaster. Even the people who wanted to stay will want to leave. Wouldn't you? And where will people seek refuge when the proverbial **** hits the fan in those countries? The same place they're seeking refuge right now. Do you honestly think telling people not to come will make them not come?
I was kind of hoping I'd misunderstand what the plan was, and it would make more sense when someone explained it. I'm getting a horrible feeling the plan is exactly what I think it is. It's probably academic as I suspect it will get struck down in court (though who knows what will happen if/when it gets to the Supreme Court). Either way, I don't think they've thought this through.
I agree, there's more we can do. For a start we need a long-term strategic plan to help these countries become more prosperous and peaceful. That will have more impact on reducing asylum seekers than just dumping thousands of refugees on their doorsteps. In the short term, I honestly don't think we can significantly stop the flow of migrants. This is the new normal. But we can mitigate the impact in lots of different ways. This issue is serious, but it can be managed. It just needs somebody sensible at the helm."In the short term, I honestly don't think we can significantly stop the flow of migrants. This is the new normal."
Sure can't do anything if we keep making excuses as to why we can't. Sometimes tough decisions just have to be made...that's the way of the world.
Let's just say screw it and let everyone in? It sincerely seems like that's your short term plan until this magical long-term plan solves all the problems down there. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just...that's insane to me. As I stated before, I cannot walk around this country with no ID, but we want to let them all in because we simply cant do anything about it.
I don't know what I would do if I were in one of these countries. That entirely depends on the situation. I might stay and fight if that's an option. HelI, I might join a drug cartel.
If we really cared about the situations in Latin America, we would start by ending the war on drugs.I have no problem with making "tough" decisions, as long as they're sensible. Based on what I've seen here (I confess I don't know the full details) this isn't sensible.
None of the countries mentioned have a "safe third country" agreement. That's because they're not safe. If you see a family running from a burning building, try telling them to wait in another burning building and see what response you get.
You seem to be suggesting the choices we have are a) create a humanitarian disaster that will cause more people to run to the southern border, or b) give up on trying to control immigration altogether, but that's a false dichotomy. Those are not the only options.
Of course there are no "magical" long-term plans, just as there are no magical short-term plans. But we keep getting told there are.
We were told Zero Tolerance would reduce the number of people crossing the border illegally. Has it? We were told cutting aid to the Central American countries we're trying to convince people to stay in, would reduce the flow of migrants. Has it?
Now we are told that making asylum seekers wait in places that are just as bad as those they're escaping from will reduce the flow of migrants too. Common sense suggests it won't. Common sense suggests people running from burning buildings don't seek refuge in other burning buildings.
We all know the things that need to be done, but they're not getting done. The question is why?Some on the right would question why, but instead of asking why they are not getting done, they would question why it is our responsibility to shoulder that burden economically as a nation. Why are the failings of other countries our responsibility?
I have family that very much believe, as gmwilliams does here, that it is the individual's responsibility to make their own life better. They did not have it easy growing up and earned the good life they have now by following laws and working hard. I agree that that can be one path.
I, and many of my relatives on the other hand, were given a boost in life through the generosity of others. I have seen what that type of investment can do for a person, and instead of using such a huge proportion of an investment in the military, that is already the equivalent of the next seven countries combined, I think we could spend some more time lifting the country up from the bottom with some investment there. Those on the right would call it socialism, I prefer to call it investment as moving people into a higher economic bracket by allowing them the time to gain economic strength will only strengthen the economy as a whole.
I do agree with Don that we need to help solve some of the root issues that are causing people to want to migrate north. There are solutions there and I do not see this administration wanting to tackle any of them.
With the exception of his "Zero Tolerance" Separation policy, Pres. Trump seems to be following similar immigration policies of the previous three presidents.
Each of those three previous presidents supported detention policies to control and deter illegal immigrants, and each of them also supported intervention and support efforts in the Northen Triangle countries.
Would you consider any of them to be sensible helmsmen?
GAWhat would you have me do GA, list every action taken by all three previous administrations over their combined 20 year term, and compare with the current administration? Outline each administration's legislative agendas? Summarize every major speech all four president's have made on the subject? Come on.
You have the same information available to you as I do. If the only difference you can find is the zero tolerance policy, you aren't looking hard enough.
One thing I don't understand. You said "and each of them also supported intervention and support efforts in the Northen Triangle countries" implying Trump does too. Support efforts? The other administrations (as far as I know) did think it was in the country's interest to address the underlying factors causing people to flee those countries by giving support.
Trump decided it would be better to cut aid to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, which he did earlier this year. He partially reinstated that aid last month, presumably after someone sensible suggested it might be a good idea.Yes, Pres. Trump did exhibit Trumpism when he threatened to cut aid. It was a boneheaded move. However, as for the part you don't understand, until that rescinded recent move, his administration was following the Northern Triangle support policies of past administrations.
Even though he doesn't seem to be inclined to look at the larger picture of support that many see as an important part of a solution, he is essentially following past president's policies. You noted you thought more could be done with someone sensible at the helm and the problems would be better addressed. I simply asked if you thought any of the referenced president's would fit your determination of "sensible"?
I wouldn't think you would need to research historical speeches or legislative agendas to answer that question. You are as familiar with past administration's policies as I am.
"Would you consider any of them to be sensible helmsmen?"
GAHe didn't "threaten" to cut aid to central American countries, he did.
"It was a boneheaded move"
You can't say that. It's Trump-bashing. Your criticism is now automatically invalid. That's how political discussion works now apparently. Did you not get the memo?
Also, some previous president, at some point in history, probably did something boneheaded too. That means unless you name every boneheaded thing every president in the history of the country ever did, you can't call Trump boneheaded. If you do, you're being hypocritical. Again this is how political discussion works now.
If I were to ignore these new rules (rebel that I am) I'd probably say that you are assuming because I don't think Trump is sensible, I must therefore think everything the three previous presidents did was sensible. That's a false assumption. I don't. I do think they were more sensible than Trump is, but in all honesty that's such a low bar it's not much of an achievement. A postage stamp could accomplish the same.*This may be a duplicate response Don.*
I already posted it and the forum page's topic list shows me as making this comment - but I can't find it in the thread. Maybe it's me. I will reboot after this post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No Don, I didn't get the memo. But no worries I will join your rebellion.
And I didn't infer anything like your extreme; "I must therefore think everything the three previous presidents did was sensible."
I felt that your "sensible" comment was simply an indication that you thought we have had a sensible helmsmen.
My point in this exchange was that when I looked back at the Clinton/Bush/Obama immigration stances and policies I found that with the exception of that inhuman Zero Tolerance Separation policy, Pres. Trump was following/enforcing the same illegal immigration policies that those three previous presidents.
All three previous presidents also made speeches containing the same points Pres. Trump is making - except theirs were rhetorically acceptable.
And . . . all three were also criticized by one segment or another for their immigration policies.
But I didn't see any instances where the criticism was as broad or vitriolic as that being thrown at Pres. Trump.
Hence my "sensible helmsman" question.
GA
Hard Sun ,You're right there are no easy answers to this problem.
By God, that is a common sense solution. I like it.
How about we fix the deplorable conditions our American homeless live in, and then turn to save the world? Just a thought, not sure how we as a nation can turn a blind eye to this kind of problem, and focus on creating a new more pressing problem of taking into many asylum seekers. With a huge growing backlog of cases, do we need to take on more? Are the American citizens that live in the streets less important than immigrants? Are we not letting them live in "concentration camp conditions"? Actually living in far worst conditions than the border facilities... Seems some are being hypocritical not recognizing our homeless, and putting immigrants? ahead of our own.
The solution the Dems have used to help the homeless, there is none. Actually, they have declared many of the cities that house the majority of our homeless as sanctuary cities, that only work to invite in more homeless.
https://www.facebook.com/DiamondandSilk … 020699057/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyxCCGMz5pw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1yCTL5dJro'The solution the Dems have used to help the homeless, there is none.' As usual, you make an accusatory partisan statement devoid of any factual basis, bordering on a complete lie.
Since 2007, the year HUD began collecting this data, homelessness decreased by 15 percent. This number masks more substantial subgroup progress over this time period. Most notably, veterans’ homelessness has dropped by 38 percent since 2007. Among people in families, there has been a 23 percent decrease. And chronic homelessness among individuals has fallen by 19 percent.
Between 2017 and 2018, however, homelessness increased slightly by 0.3 percent or 1,834 people.
Under Democratic administrations, homelessness decreased. Under GOP administration, it has risen. These are what are known as conclusions based in factual reality.Numbers are well and good to know. But what are we doing now, at this point in our history to end homelessness? My point was to point out that perhaps we could take care of this problem before adding a new one. I for one would rather see my tax dollar spent on Americans that are in dire need of help. Many of these homeless are vets, and the mentally ill. You can give all the stats you feel necessary, but my link speaks loudly.
And yet, with the actual data, I proved that the issue was being addressed at the same time that the Obama administration deported more undocumented immigrants than any previous administration in history, without being so negligent that children were dying while in their care. God forbid we have a party elected that can actually multitask and get the results that the American people are hoping for while doing so in a humane manner.
Numbers are not just good to know, they can be the difference between fact and opinion.
You said 'The solution the Dems have used to help the homeless, there is none.'
Valeant gave you figures which indicate homelessness fell during the last administration, and rose slightly during the current administration.
If you want sources to verify the figures, fine, but it's unreasonable to ignore data that contradicts what you have said.
I can confirm those figures are accurate. Here is the source: https://files.hudexchange.info/resource … Part-1.pdf
Homelessness did in fact drop almost every year of the last administration. So clearly the Democrats the last administration was doing something sensible there. Perhaps you should find out what that was and recommend it to the current administration.
To your broader point, people are trying to enter the US because it's better than wherever they are fleeing from. If you don't think it's in our interests to do as much as we can to help Central America be as safe and as prosperous as possible, then you're not paying attention.
Trump administration helping the poor again....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-admini … 00068.html
...by cutting access to food stamps. So much help.
- Onusonusposted 5 years ago
0Ever notice how the solution always requires spending a ton of money to solve our problems at the border?
How about politicians simply stop giving tax payer money to illegals who cross over our border and the problem will solve itself. The requirement is nothing new. It's been on the books for years.
Here is an article on it from 2017.
“The problem is that here in the United States this international principle of demanding that migrants claim asylum or refuge at the first safe country they reach is mostly honored in the breach. Everyone pays lip service to it, but no one, least of all our pusillanimous political or government leaders, really expects America to demand that the international convention be scrupulously adhered to, either by those who are allegedly seeking shelter from harm, or by the countries those migrants use as doormats en route to America as the nation of economic choice.”
https://cis.org/Cadman/Why-Shouldnt-Cen … lum-Mexico
This is currently the law in Europe.
“To avoid abuses, European law and the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in,[4] and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_shoppingThis is all true, with the difference being, if Trump's order is not overturned, previously it has always been the first "safe country," and what is "safe" is determined by agreements between nations.
Since First Country agreements were already part of the process this isn't too much of a stretch. We have one with Canada but not with Mexico, otherwise there would be no need for this rule. And, my understanding is that these agreements really have little to do with the conditions in the respective nations, and everything to do with the leaders of said nations abilities to cooperate.Not sure if it's true, or I misunderstood, but I did hear that we now have an agreement with Mexico. For what it's worth.
I don't think so...it seems this order would be irrelevant if we did.
Here's an NPR discussion from June 7 2019 discussing what it would mean if we had such an agreement with Mexico. It clears a few things up in terms of how the agreements work and what they are now. It's interesting that Sarah Pierce of the Migration Policy Institute states an agreement would likely help the border situation but not necessarily the migrants' situation. In reference to Trump. "He just wants them off his doorstep." Well, why should we have to have to be responsible for so many? Burden sharing is good.
https://www.npr/2019/06/07/730758930/wh … uld-entailIt could well be that WE don't consider Mexico as "unsafe", not that Mexico has an agreement with us that they are safe. I'm really not positive at all; I only throw it out there if anyone is interested in researching it. As far as I'm concerned it is OUR call, not that of Mexico.
Yes, we should all share the burden. We've taken Mexicans crossing our border for years and years, with Mexican authorities actively approving and complaining that we had to do for Mexico's sake; let Mexico take care of those that cross their southern border.The effects of this order we are discussing are EXACTLY the same as having an agreement! The results are any immigrants coming through Mexico must stop in Mexico to apply for asylum. TBH, this is getting a bit frustrating as this was thoroughly discussed in the Solutions to the Immigration Detention Camps thread where I posted this:
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/344 … mps?page=8
The DHS and DOJ just issued a new rule bypassing any need for an agreement for those who cross into the US through the Southern Border. It is to be published in the Federal Registry on July 16.
"1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or
torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United
States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country; (2)an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 CFR 214.11; or (3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the CAT.
In all cases the burden would remain with the alien to establish eligibility for asylum
consistent with current law,
---Nations that are parties to the convention include Mexico, Belize, Venezuela, Brazil, Columbia, Costa Rica, Hounduras, etc.
Actual Rule: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … ntral.html
A list of nations bound to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugess: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ShowMTDSG … rticipants
Story about the rule: https://politicallydc.com/2019/07/15/tr … ng-asylum/
As GA pointed out, whether it will be our call in the end, will likely be decided by the courts in the end, but the Justice Department and DHS already made the call.
To all advocates of open borders. A recent Gallup poll guesstimated that the number of people who would flood into our country, by responses to the poll, would be (including an estimate on the children accompanying adults) 386-703 million.
We currently have an estimated 327 million citizens. So, if we tripled our population with the 'tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of the teeming shores, the homeless, tempest-tost" how would that affect our budgets for social services?
Where would we find the funds to maintain current social programs? How would that affect our ability to implement other social programs many on the left advocate? How would that affect our ability to help those citizens already here and in need of help?To all advocates of open borders . . .
Such as? Who on this thread, or in the forum advocates completely open borders? I haven't seen any.If you don't advocate open borders then why respond to the comment? It specifically said 'to those who advocate open borders'.
If you don't advocate open borders then why respond to the comment?
Because I haven't seen any advocates of open borders on the forum, and I'd like to know if there are any. Seeing as that's who you addressed your comments to, I assumed you know people on the forum who do hold that view. Is that not the case?You seem oddly offended and argumentative. I was just throwing out numbers. If you have a problem with those, please proceed. Otherwise, you are just sounding oddly offended and argumentative.
Offended? No. I'd have no qualms letting you know if I was offended. Just curious. You addressed your comment in an oddly narrow and specific way. I just wondered if that was because you knew of anyone on the forum who holds that position. Apparently you don't, as I thought. My curiosity is satisfied.
No Don, I didn't get the memo. But no worries I will join your rebellion.
And I didn't infer anything like your extreme; "I must therefore think everything the three previous presidents did was sensible."
I felt that your "sensible" comment was simply an indication that you thought we have had a sensible helmsmen.
My point in this exchange was that when I looked back at the Clinton/Bush/Obama immigration stances and policies I found that with the exception of that inhuman Zero Tolerance Separation policy, Pres. Trump was following/enforcing the same illegal immigration policies of those three previous presidents.
All three previous presidents also made speeches containing the same points Pres. Trump is making - except theirs were more rhetorically acceptable.
And . . . all three were also criticized by one segment or another for their immigration policies.
But I didn't see any instances where the criticism was as broad or vitriolic as that being thrown at Pres. Trump.
Hence my "sensible helmsman" question. Consider it answered and we can move on to something more sensible. ;-)
GA
Related Discussions
- 20
Hey, Have What's Happening At The Border? Nothing Good
by Sharlee 2 years ago
"With all of America's other pressing problems, we may want to keep an eye on what is going on at our southern border. In April 2022 we had once again a record-breaking number of encounters 234,000. It is expected that for May we will far surpass April's numbers. ...
- 19
President Trump Addresses the Nation - then democrats get to whine...
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
The President will make a national address tonight on the security crisis at the southern border. Initially the networks refused to air the speech, but soon realized it would be a terrible decision with Trump's high popularity among voters. The media will however allow Democrats who...
- 27
Why are some people angered by Trump's promise to build a wall on the southern b
by Stephanie Launiu 8 years ago
Why are some people angered by Trump's promise to build a wall on the southern border?Donald Trump has promised to build a wall on the southern border with Mexico. About a third of the world's countries have a fence or wall on their border - 4 times as many as when the Berlin wall came down. Most...
- 44
President Trump ordered the national guards to the southern border.
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
Do you think this is a good idea?Is it legal under ourlaws?Is the border situation getting better or worse?How should the US deal with the convoy of migrants coming our way?Do you think building the wall is only long term solution?
- 95
H E L L O! Democrats!
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
The question was asked,".... why we should allow the southern border to remain open with no security measures in place?" by RJ Schwartz. ... still waiting for an answer.
- 26
President Donald Trump is Time's Person of the Year
by Readmikenow 11 hours ago
Nobody deserves being made Time's Person of the Year more than President Donald Trump."For those who believe this is all for the better, Trump’s victory represents a long-overdue rebuke to an entrenched and arrogant governing class; for those who see it as for the worse, the destruction...