Biden's Border Crisis - Is It About To Get Worse?

Jump to Last Post 1-34 of 34 discussions (183 posts)

81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN2B81M5

Migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border are at a 21-year high.

Through the first nine months of this year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has reported it “encountered” 1,516,650 people trying to cross the southern border illegally. This is nearly 5 times as many as were caught in the same period in 2020 when officials recorded 329,741 encounters. Source https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-paper … r-response

Migrant encounters top 2 million in the calendar year 2021, on pace for repeat in 2022.

What is title 42 immigration?
Title 42 expulsions are removals by the U.S. government of persons who have recently been in a country where a communicable disease was present. The extent of authority for contagion-related expulsions is set out by law in 42 U.S.C. § 265.

The U.S. is ending its pandemic border rules. It could mean a surge in migration.

"The Biden administration is moving to end sweeping pandemic border restrictions known as Title 42 on May 23. The official announcement came Friday in an order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The spread of COVID-19 by migrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border has "ceased to be a serious danger to the public health," CDC Director Rochelle Walensky wrote.

Since March 2020, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has used the controversial public health order to quickly expel migrants at the border due to health concerns related to the coronavirus pandemic.

DHS officials brace for a new surge at the border if pandemic restrictions are lifted...

The Biden administration has largely continued this Trump-era policy despite criticism from immigrant advocates, who say the policy puts migrants in danger by forcing them to go to places like Haiti and Mexican border towns.

On March 12, the CDC announced it was dropping Title 42 for unaccompanied children, but left the policy in place for others migrants. Though under the Biden administration, DHS had already moved to exempt unaccompanied minors from Title 42. There have also been exceptions for many families traveling together."

If article 42 is canned, what do you feel the effect at our border will be?

Do you feel that with the record number of people crossing the border the removal of article 42 could cause a humanitarian crisis, in regards to processing an increase of migrant numbers that may feel this is the opportune time to make the trip across Mexico?

This link will offer some eye-opening statistics about what CBP dealt with for the month of February -- Releases February 2022 Monthly Operational Update.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-m … nal-update
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know that it will increase the number of people entering the country illegally.
  
  But what it will almost certainly do is give Biden and other liberals more chance to spread them through the country rather than deport them. They can even do it in broad daylight this time as there is no danger of spreading a pandemic.
  reply report
78
Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago
"9- Mexico: The tenth most populous country in the world ranks 9th on the list of richest countries in the world."

Officially the United Mexican States, Mexico is a country in North America.
Rank Country Net Worth
1. China $113 trillion
2. United States $50 trillion
3. Germany $14 trillion
4. France $14 trillion
5. United Kingdom $7 trillion
6. Canada $7 trillion
7. Australia $7 trillion
8. Japan $3 trillion
9. Mexico $3 trillion
10. Sweden -
*The above table indicates the increase in net worth during 2000-2020, while the Mexican data is from 2003-2020. "

Can't we do anything to get Mexico's economy percolating?

There is a challenge for Trump.
If he could become president there, things would turn around and they'd be begging to go back home.
- dare I post this?
--- whoops, here I go.

https://www.centuroglobal.com/article/h … tizenship.

Well, maybe he could mentor a strong Mexican leader.
reply report
1. 81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  At this point, the Mexican people liked their president. This has not been relevant for a very long time. Hopefully, he will generate a better economy and incentive to stay in Mexico. Many that pass through may also decide to stay.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure of the percentage of Mexicans that make up the migrant flow to the border versus those from Central America. Regions that our government interfered with and destabilized long ago creating the atrocious conditions these people try to escape today. The United States has had a checkered history of involvement in Central America and some say American foreign policy in the region caused the instability and inequality at the root of the current crisis.
  and others
  The answer goes back decades. There was the CIA’s covert operation to overthrow Guatemala’s democratically elected president in 1954. And America’s intervention in El Salvador’s civil war in the 1980s. And the Obama administration’s refusal in 2009 to label the ouster of Honduras’ president a military coup even though soldiers dragged him out of bed in the middle of the night and sent him into exile in his pajamas.
  
  We’ve sent troops there, we’ve suborned governments there, and basically, we have been supporting the elites who protect U.S. business interests.
  The decades-long history of American intervention has left Central American governments weak and fragile. Like I said before we've never seen a coup We haven't liked. We roll in, roll them over but leave it in despair. Whats been left? Corrupt regimes, drug cartels and ramping violence. That has driven residents to flee.
  
  Jeff Faux, a distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute says "People are leaving because the corrupt governments (supported by the U.S.) have tolerated and encouraged the growth of these criminal organizations,”
  
  Of course, yes, the U.S.’s direct intervention and U.S. policies have absolutely destabilized” Guatemala, El Salvador and other Central American countries, creating long-term problems in the region, said Stephanie Leutert, director of the Mexico Security Initiative at the University of Texas.
  But again it's one factor of many that has had decades long history of punting this problem along.
  reply report
  89
  IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  ^This. Thank you!
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "I'm not sure of the percentage of Mexicans that make up the migrant flow to the border versus those from Central America."
  
  I was pointing out just that, At this point, the Mexican people liked their president, he has created more opportunities. This has not been relevant for a very long time. I was trying to point out that many from all countries due to more jobs being generated and a better economy will give many from other countries incentive to stay in Mexico. As they pass through and decide to stay.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  well, Good!
  ... actually EXCELLENT !
  
  Mexico is filled with creative, kind hearted and hardworking people. American citizens, (as opposed to our government) could help them somehow. Get things percolating even more. (I think helping Mexico economically was one of the aims / benefits of NAFTA, but for some reason it didn't work out.)
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
"BeyondWords
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health order.

"Today’s decision confirms that President Biden has abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the border crisis worse," McCarthy said in a statement. "From day one of his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security and to secure the border."

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Friday announced that it will be terminating the Title 42 public health policy, that has been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to quickly expel migrants at the southern border since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, on May 23."

"After considering current public health conditions and an increased availability of tools to fight COVID-19 (such as highly effective vaccines and therapeutics), the CDC Director has determined that an Order suspending the right to introduce migrants into the United States is no longer necessary," the agency said in a statement.

Activists and left-wing Democrats have been calling for the Biden administration to end the order for months, claiming it is cruel and denied migrants due process.

But Republican and moderate Democratic lawmakers, as well as law enforcement at the border, have expressed concern that it could lead to a spike in migration that could overwhelm agents and exceed the enormous numbers seen last year.

"This decision is wrong and will invite a lawless surge of illegal border crossings to enrich human traffickers and overwhelm our Border Patrol," McCarthy said. This will inflict suffering, pain, and tragedy throughout our country."

"Make no mistake, the President will own the calamity his policies have created," he added.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Friday claimed that DHS has "put in place a comprehensive, whole-of-government strategy to manage any potential increase in the number of migrants encountered at our border."

Border Patrol agents, however, have been blunter in their assessment: "We are expecting to get wrecked," one agent told Fox News Digital."

The order was implemented by the Trump administration due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and has since been used by both the Trump and Biden administrations to expel a majority of migrants at the border. While it is a public health order, not an immigration policy, it has become one of the central border policies in place as the U.S. faces record numbers of illegal border crossings. In February, approximately 55% of migrants were returned due to the order, rather than being released into the U.S."

S, why s the CDC making hs decision at a point when we are seeing a new spike in Omicron B2? On one hand, we have Fauci giving warnings of possible new mitigations, we have the CDC left article 42.

Migrants that approach the border and ask for asylum are still being given the OPTION to be vaccinated, but are not required to be vacinated.

Now I will be shortly returning from Mexico, and I am required to be fully vaccinated, to test negative before getting on my flight, and if positive turned away until a Doctor can say I am safe to fly. This is at my own expense mind you. I will lose my flight, add five-day expenses to quarantine, and pay a Doc to say, I am good to go. Does this all seem half-ass backward?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccart … -42-repeal

Wonder if House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy is working up an impeachment case? Serious words --- President Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities"

I mean by fall we should be seeing some outrageous numbers of migrants walking across the border. An all-time record perhaps?

Maybe just starting a list for 2022?
reply report
1. 61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I think that there are quite a few pieces to this that again are never elaborated upon in the media.
  
  The benefits of repealing or leaving in place Title 42 are not as straightforward as either border security or human rights advocates claim. If approached smartly, rescinding Title 42 could lead to a more secure and prosperous America rather than the chaos that some warn of.
  Proponents of keeping Title 42 in place assert that the quick expulsions are needed because they give officials greater ability to intercept and turn back more migrants. A recent report from the Migration Policy Institute notes that Title 42 expulsions can take as little as 15 minutes, while removals under standard immigration law, which require more procedures and paperwork, can often take an hour and half.
  
  But the procedural steps that Title 42 bypasses are critical for the U.S.’s ability to target smuggling networks and discourage repeat crossings. This is why Border Patrol agents warned in a 2021 report from the Government Accountability Office that Title 42 “negatively affected enforcement” because the expulsions gave them no time to collect intelligence from migrants concerning nearby smugglers and other illegal activity.
  
  The quick expulsions under Title 42 also cut corners in ways that prevent authorities from deterring migrants as they attempt to reenter the country. Before the pandemic, officials were able to use criminal prosecution, fines and other penalties to deter people from repeatedly crossing the border. This is because apprehended migrants were being processed under standard immigration law. Title 42, however, is a provision that exists under health law, which means that authorities are incapable of issuing penalties for reentry against migrants who are expelled under this provision. Border Patrol officials have stated that because of Title 42, migrants now try to cross multiple times a day. Since the pandemic expulsions began, repeat crossings jumped from 7 percent in 2019 to 26 percent in 2020. It’s not unheard of for people to make as many as 30 attempts at crossing in just the span of a few weeks.
  
  With migrants now encouraged to make multiple attempts at entry, smuggling networks are enjoying a windfall from those soliciting their services for each attempt. “It’s great for us,” one human smuggler from El Salvador told Reuters when asked about the policy. He, along with two other smugglers, said that they save roughly $1,000 each time Border Patrol expels one of their Central American clients. This is because Title 42 drops them off at locations that are relatively close to the U.S.-Mexico border. Before the policy, U.S. officials had to formally deport Central Americans back to their home countries, and smugglers incurred the costs of transporting their clients back for another attempt.
  
  At the same time, advocates for ending Title 42 as well as President Biden must acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of people who are being expelled under the policy haven’t been families seeking asylum, but rather single adults fleeing extreme economic deprivation and in search of work. In February alone, more than 90 percent of Title 42 expulsions were single adults. The vast majority from Mexico. Mexican President Obrador has acknowledged this reality and urged President Biden several times last year to work with him to expand guest worker programs for the U.S./ Mexico.
  
  Extensive research shows that when expanded legal channels are paired with border security measures, illegal immigration rapidly declines. This was exactly what happened in the mid-1950s when the U.S. government expanded their agricultural worker program for Mexicans, which caused illegal immigration to collapse by 95 percent in just 5 years! Border Patrol saw the success of the agricultural program and warned that restricting it would cause “a large increase in the number of illegal alien entrants into the United States.” But in 1960, the Department of Labor did just that, causing employer use of the program to drop by 30 percent in just one year while Mexican apprehensions increased by 55 percent. When the program was eliminated altogether, apprehensions continued to grow reaching nearly 1 million by 1976. So we had some success and then we dropped to the ball.
  
  With a surge at the border and a shortage of workers, maintaining Title 42 has done nothing to solve either crisis aside from creating more jobs for human smugglers.
  
  The CDC has claimed that covid has ceased to be a serious danger to the public health at the border. It was the CDC that invoked Title 42 as a pandemic-prevention measure in March 2020, and it was the CDC this week that determined there is no longer a health need to keep migrants from entering the country. But it delayed the cutoff until May 23 in order to roll out the vaccination program. The agency is already administering up to 2,000 COVID-19 vaccinations a day at 11 migrant processing sites, with plans to expand to 27 sites and as many as 6,000 shots a day.
  Yes title 42 was supposed to be a health measure not an immigration policy But has been wielded as such. officials in the previous administration explored enacting the policy before the pandemic by using the flu and measles as justification. It's been used at the border as an enforcement tool and a pretty ineffective one at that.
  
  A D.C. Appeals Court recognized the grave dangers faced by those subject to Title 42, and ruled that it is unlawful for the government to expel people without first ensuring they will not be returned to torture or persecution. The court also questioned the policy’s public health justification, noting that it “looks in certain respects like a relic from an era with no vaccines, scarce testing, few therapeutics, and little certainty.”
  Many believe It was always a way to illegally restrict access to asylum, and not about public health at all. A group of doctors under the homeland security agency also urged members of Congress to stop Title 42 expulsions, writing that the policy prompts parents to send their children alone over the border, resulting in added family separation cases.
  Let's move the direction of doing something at the border that makes more sense. Title 42 was a stop gap that really failed to address huge underlying issues that drive immigration. Honestly, it's just another issue that has been patched over and passed along through the decades.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "A recent report from the Migration Policy Institute notes that Title 42 expulsions can take as little as 15 minutes, while removals under standard immigration law, which require more procedures and paperwork, can often take an hour and half.
  
  But the procedural steps that Title 42 bypasses are critical for the U.S.’s ability to target smuggling networks and discourage repeat crossings. This is why Border Patrol agents warned in a 2021 report from the Government Accountability Office that Title 42 “negatively affected enforcement” because the expulsions gave them no time to collect intelligence from migrants concerning nearby smugglers and other illegal activity."
  
  The border patrol has complained that the vast number of migrants has made it impossible to apprehend those that are not stepping up to be possessed. That would-be drug smugglers, and persons that know they would be arrested for one reason or another... This type never takes the chance of presenting themselves but just walks into the country and disappears as do those carrying drugs.
  
  Hey, I will predict a huge record-breaking number of migrants will make their way to the border in the next few months. We will see an all-time record. In my view, this is just one more example of the Biden administration creating a problem adding to an already horrific problem. This is what Biden does best. create problems, and add to them.
  
  Hopefully, you took the time to check the link I offered, which gives the stats on the number of drugs that have been brought in illegally in this past year, and the truely sad number of unaccompanied children.
  
  Actually, 42 did not cut down on the number of migrants that present at the border, but t did send some back to wait in Mexico.
  
  Our immigration problems are not new, but it certainly shows Government has been inept in solving the problems that occur with so many hoping to apply for asylum.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, absolutely I did. The 2 areas you mentioned are the 2 that have actually been most negatively affected by title 42 as I described in my first post.
  The determination by the CDC that there is no longer a public health justification to expel migrants doesn’t mean that the borders are open. Not everyone is going to seek asylum, and not everyone is going to qualify for asylum. Some people will be processed into the country to await their court date and others will be deported because they either don’t request asylum or don’t qualify for it. Immigration systems will return to normal.
  Their are a lot of Republican folks who were screaming "open borders" when Title 42 was in place and a million people were expelled. So the posturing isn’t based on facts; it’s just an electoral strategy. I will note that in the 2018 midterms, many ran on a “caravan” of migrants coming to the border and lost their races.
  In terms of unaccompanied children as you mentioned , the Biden administration reinstated the Central American Minors (CAM), which provides unaccompanied children with a safer, legal pathway to migrate.
  
  The Trump administration shut the program down and it took time to put systems back in place; the program depends on the same refugee resettlement system that the former administration also gutted and that was working to resettle Afghan allies.
  Additionally, we haven't seen a major immigration bill or changes in the past in 30 years. The last big immigration bill was passed in 1986 when Ronald Reagan was president and both houses of Congress were held by Democrats. shocking huh? Do you think we would see that kind of bipartisanship today to address the issue? I think not.
  Immigration has become intricately bound up with issues of identity, prone to the politics of tribalism and of less interest to the business community.
  President Biden will not be able to affect the border on his own. He'll need the cooperative efforts of Congress along with Mexico and Central America to address issues that drive migration.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "Immigration systems will return to normal."
  
  What do you consider "normal"? The systems under Trump? Those under Biden? The policies and systems from 50 years ago?
  
  If "normal" is the system under Biden, whereupon we see hundreds of thousands of people entering the country every year, with a large percentage welcomed in and set free to do as they please, do you believe we can continue those systems? When they encourage the numbers to rise, can we still absorb the influx without damage?
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  And encouraging this influx when our inflation is so high and may become worse, makes no sense. Biden's administration has already broken a 20 year high in border crossings, and I truely feel this year he will break an all-time record. How can anyone feel in any respect that this kind of blatant ignoring of a problem can be good?
  
  I was so pleased to see House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy on Friday accused President Biden of having "abdicated his responsibilities" at the southern border and making the ongoing migrant crisis worse after the administration announced that it is lifting the Title 42 public health order.
  
  In my view McCarthy is right, President Biden has abdicated his responsibilities at our borders and is actively working to make the border crisis worse, and from day one of his administration, he has failed to protect our nation’s security and secure the border.
  
  It is Congress's job to keep a watchful eye on a president, and it's time they step up and admit that Biden has truely failed at protecting the Nation by not securing the border.
  
  IMO, we are having serious problems occurring under this administration that are not being addressed. And made worse by being ignored.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Have you ever heard the term, "Kicking the can down the road?"
  Well, we have already kicked this can into a wall.
  It time to stop kicking the can.
  
  (... and get off the other one.)
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  McCarthy should remember that old adage about pointing your finger at something . . . he should remember that there are three fingers pointing back.
  
  Congress was the first and most enduring abdication of responsibilities relative to this issue.
  
  Our immigration laws must be changed to address the reality of the problem, not the goal of the idealism of the issue. I think this administration is handling this crisis badly, but in many ways, their hands are tied, (as were past administrations), by Congress' lack of will and courage.
  
  Congress is good at creating and passing the buck, but lousy at stopping it.
  
  GA
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Yes by normal I mean what has been in place for all that time. Congress has never been able to do much have they? Not since Reagan. And anyone who thinks that any changes will be made when our parties are so oppositional and polarized is probably fooling themself.
  Seems like our government would Rather be in the business of opposition rather than coming up with new ideas or actual negotiation. Some of our government feels their time is better spent on whipping people into outrage over non-existent issues like burning books or CRT or gender identification in kindergarten. It would be laughable if it weren't so disappointing for our country.
  The challenge for every Congress and president in the past few decades has been to overhaul an outdated, under-resourced, and bureaucracy-laden immigration system. You really think that's going to change now? No, our parties are so entrenched that government is almost ineffectual anymore.
  Although I I think it's worth noting that immigration experts say the patterns of migration do not seem to correlate to any specific U.S. immigration policy. The numbers seem to go up and down on a logic of their own. People leave their home countries for reasons other than U.S. policy, such as deteriorating economic, political or public safety conditions. It's goes back to My previous post about how we have destabilized Central America repeatedly in the past. I don't blame people for wanting out do you?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I would agree that immigration policies don't change immigration numbers much...except for the low numbers that Trump produced.
  
  I certainly don't blame people for wanting out. But I DO blame people for inviting huge numbers into our country to change our culture while feeding at the American trough.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  We need to see it as a purposeful invasion. We need to stop scratching our heads in confusion and dumbfoundedness and recognize we are being attacked. American people must not be against each other any more. That indulgence must stop. It is an urgent matter to find our common enemy.
  
  TWISI
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I don't view people seeking a better life as the enemy. Never will. Especially since this country's past actions have set the stage for what we have now. I have a strong suspicion and am pretty certain I could find data to support the idea that these people would rather stay in their own countries than make a long dangerous trip to our boarder but many issues are pushing them to leave. It's high time the U.S. clean up the mess it's made in Central America. That's where immigration reform starts. Has our government ever been up to that task? That's a resounding no.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  We could start out, "cleaning up," by understanding what "mess" we made.
  Can you explain that "mess" ?
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I suppose it depends how you look at it. Should we pretend like we can stop the flow of people out of countries that are devastatingly impoverished, run by corrupt governments where violence is rampant as well As disease from the lack of clean water not to mention the natural disasters they've incurred one after the other (hurricanes were At an all-time high for Central America last year), crops that have been wiped out and land that doesn't lend itself to being productive in the same way anymore.
  I'm not sure if any message or messaging from our government throughout time has worked to stop the flow of migrants.
  Is that the "crisis"
  Or is the crisis that our policies throughout time have never addressed decades-long stalemate on immigration reform and a recurring lack of effective and lasting policy change in the face of migration.
  
  Or is the crisis, that People are coming to our border and we don't have a humane way to manage that and treat them fairly and have their cases heard, adjudicated and then decided. And the crisis comes in trying to expel them back to terrible conditions?
  Is it a crisis when a nation is willing to rip a 9-year-old child out of the hands of his or her parent and separate that family to deter future migration. That, to me, is a humanitarian crisis. And I don't care if the person has a D or an R next to their name who does it. Wrong is wrong.
  Maybe our "crisis" is that we don't have an immigration system that works and that migration to our country is not safe, orderly, or humane.
  You'd be hard pressed to point to a president in the last 25 to 30 years that has had such policy.
  In my opinion we need to weigh enforcement priorities against humanitarian interests, and there's nothing here we can't handle that's going to alter American society.
  This "crisis" is nothing new. And frankly I don't care what it's called I care about what is done.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  It is urgent that we focus on the big picture. What is the bigger picture, do you suppose.
  
  In my mind, it is justice for the People of the United States. Is it JUST to jeopardize their way of life which they, as a people, have accomplished through two and half centuries of hard work, determination and intense diligence? Is it JUST for a president to shirk his duty of protecting the citizens of the country he was elected to PROTECT?
  Is it JUST to disregard the borders of their country?
  
  NO NO and NO.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  How is your way of life being jeopardized? You seem to be saying that we should bar access to our country completely? Or just from Mexicans, Central Americans and South Americans?
  
  " Is it JUST to jeopardize their way of life which they, as a people, have accomplished through two and half centuries of hard work, determination"
  
  Yes! The majority of which were immigrants themselves!
  report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  - your arguments are based on a narrow vision.
  report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  How so? I Base my view and opinion not on routinely falling into a partisan line but what the facts of the situation bear out.
  I don't find my life as being jeopardized whatsoever.
  report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Your view is narrow because it does not include the purpose of a country: To protect the people that live there. What IS your view based on?
  report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "Maybe our "crisis" is that we don't have an immigration system that works and that migration to our country is not safe, orderly, or humane."
  
  But we DO have a system wherein immigration to our country is "safe, orderly and humane". IF you follow the rules and do what is required.
  
  If, on the other hand, you ignore the rules and laws, attempting to sneak in past law enforcement and disappear into the country, violating our laws every day you are here, it is neither safe, orderly or humane.
  
  Of course, the same thing applies to every American citizen; follow the law and you will be safe, orderly and treated humanely. Violate the laws and you will not. I at least see no reason to treat foreign citizens any differently.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  100%, we have some very good immigration laws that are and have not been followed for decades.
  report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  You really believe we have a coherent immigration policy? I beg to differ. What we have had decade after decade are executive orders and rules that are mostly changed or undone consecutively administration after administration. What we have At the southern border is not consistently coherent It's mostly chaotic And will continue to be so because our elected officials would rather play polarizing politics than get anything done.
  report
  93
  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "devastatingly impoverished, run by corrupt governments where violence is rampant as well As disease from the lack of clean water not to mention the natural disasters they've incurred one after the other (hurricanes were At an all-time high for Central America last year), crops that have been wiped out and land that doesn't lend itself to being productive in the same way anymore."
  
  Sounds like a city run by democrats in the United States
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately there are no laws preventing those people from "immigrating" to better run states/cities.
  
  Whereupon, all too often, they attempt to turn their new home into what their old one was. Thinking, apparently, that it will be different this time...which it never is.
  report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  you give them a lot of credit. I think they just have it mind to get whatever they can. I've heard them say to each other, "If you don't take advantage of everything you can here, you are not intelligent ...
  No, you are stupid."
  report
  93
  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Each country does also have immigration laws that prevent them from moving to another country. Maybe Democrats could immigrate en masse to a Central American country of their choosing. They would already believe in the governmental policies in place.
  report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I am fully aware of why Trump created Title 42, and why Biden continued to use it with blessings from the CDC.
  
  Hee is my common sense take... Title 42 was not a fix-all, but it did send more back across the border quickly. I feel that if Biden removes it, it stands to be not only an invitation but will once again have the majority able to enter the country instead of being returned to Mexico to wait for their turn or just be expelled if they are not candidates to enter.
  
  Biden is once again making a problem by ripping off a bandaid. It would be fine if he had a solution that would work as Title 42 was working, he does not thus far.
  
  In a matter of months, we will see a historical record of people pouring in across the border, all due to removing Title 42.
  
  And huge was a gap, one that worked for the time it was in place. Ya don't just get rid of a bucket when the boat is leaking and overflowing. Just like you don't make it hard to produce oil and natural gas, and beg from other countries, and add to our inflation problems.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Part of what made Title 42 so morally objectionable is that it placed thousands of migrants in harm's way. A 2021 research team for Physicians for Human Rights found that people expelled under the measure were subjected to violence once they were returned to Mexican border cities. And Title 42 has been applied inconsistently: Refugees from Ukraine have been allowed to claim asylum at the border, while those from Haiti have been expelled and sent back to unsafe conditions at home. This glaring double standard is simply unacceptable. But that's how we do it here.
  Title 42 was always a border control measure masquerading as public health policy. Covid-19 was already rampant in the US by the time the policy went into effect, and the law was never applied to air travelers or US citizens crossing the border. It was only used as a pretext for keeping out migrants who were mostly brown, Black and economically vulnerable.
  Of course Republicans will seize on this move by the Biden administration as evidence of "an open borders" policy. They will paint doomsday scenarios of migrants crossing the border. Yet GOP lawmakers have never offered any constructive immigration or asylum solutions of their own. They prefer to push talking points about President Biden's so-called border crisis. President Biden has actually changed very little from Mr Trump's stance on immigration which in reality Not much has changed actually in decades.
  
  What this country is really confronting is decades of neglect and mishandling of US immigration policy by successive presidential administrations.
  The Biden administration is working on contingency plans to prepare for the anticipated increase in border arrivals. Should we fear and demonize these people? It's a good thing for the people of Ukraine that their neighbors don't apply the same logic as we do here. So with ending title 42 we can possibly have an asylum system that honors due process and respects human dignity?
  
  There was no change in immigration law under Mr Trump. There have not been any substantial reforms or additions to immigration law or policy in decades. Why? Even as President Biden lifts title 42 we will go back to what we've always had. In the current climate of polarization and completely ineffectual government do you have any hope that anything will change?
  
  I won't hold a party line on this just to hold it. There's more than enough blame to go around on immigration and it's completely bipartisan.
  
  Why would politicians fix our immigration problems when they can campaign off of it?
  
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande … b666a056c0
  
  https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/03/30/fac … -migration
  reply report
  93
  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "Refugees from Ukraine have been allowed to claim asylum at the border, while those from Haiti have been expelled and sent back to unsafe conditions at home."
  
  I hate to point this out, but have you seen the conditions in Ukraine? You know what? There is a very, very bad war going on there and lots of bad things going on. NOT because Ukrainians are unable to run their country properly but because some very bad people from a very large country are trying to kill all of them. I think the conditions in Ukraine are a little bit more unsafe than in Haiti. Maybe it's the constant bombing, murdering of innocent civilians, annihilation of cities, it all adds up.
  
  It seems more than a bit ridiculous to me to compare the situation in Haiti to the situation in Ukraine.
  reply report
89
GA Andersonposted 2 years ago
How about a contrarian view? Not one arguing the projected disaster, but one about the legality and `fairness' of maintaining it now

Title 42 was a specific tool created for specific circumstances, and it helped. (and probably still would, Covid isn't gone). But, it wasn't there until the government issued national restrictions. Now that those national restrictions have been lifted there is no non-discriminatory support for maintaining it.*

*That needs the caveat that my only perception of Title 42 is that it was another successful screening tool added to the process. And, had the added `side' benefit of reducing the inflow rate. For perspective, I think a strict `Remain in Mexico' position was justified from the beginning, so I also supported Title 42.

Now, I don't think supporters can legitimately promote keeping it, without accepting that their true support is for the "side" benefit that it reduced the in-flow into the nation. They can still support it, but dump the `emergency' Covid stuff and just leave Covid as one of the screening tools.

I bet there might even be some extrapolation of executive order power that gives a president the power to change the authorization granted to Title 42. Keep it with a different authorization, something like `Hey, it works, it helps our country, and it's fair for our country and the potential immigrants.' I would buy that.

GA
reply report
1. 81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Can argue your common sense opinion... Lost for words
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Here's my "common-sense" solution, "Keep it with a different authorization, something like `Hey, it works, it helps our country, and it's fair for our country and the potential immigrants.' I would buy that."
  
  Or even better, until we fix our immigration system, stick with a "Remain in Mexico" policy. "The door is open, but you have to wait your turn"
  
  What's wrong with that?
  
  GA
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  As I said, love your common-sense approach. Sort of if it's not totally broke don't try to fix it. It will work until we buy more duck tape.
  reply report
78
Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago
I live in California and see illegal immigrants everywhere. Yes, they have impacted my life. A couple of guys, illegal aliens, who were drunk-driving, ran into our car, an Acura, which was parked, and totaled it. There was nothing we could do about it, legally. We had just put $1,500 into the car. This is just one of many, many anecdotes out there.
Are the facts found throughout the internet?
Probably.
reply report
1. 61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  So based on your logic, If let's say and Irish immigrant violates my personal property or even my person that I am to assume All Irish immigrants are dangerous, reckless and I need protection from them?
  I don't find that personal anecdotes can be widely generalized out.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Thats not what I meant.
  I meant that people flooding into the country bring germs we have no immunity to. Thats the bigger picture. It's a lesson from history books.
  reply report
93
Readmikenowposted 2 years ago
I would be satisfied if our immigration laws were obeyed. I would be satisfied if taxpayer dollars were not spent to care for people who come across the border illegally and are taken care of by the US government.

I would be satisfied if every liberal who believed in illegal immigration would sponsor just one illegal immigrant so the illegal immigrant could become a citizen.

It is easy to talk. I have gone through the process with relatives who came her legally. There is money to be paid, lots of paperwork to be filled out, and as a sponsor, you are responsible for making certain the immigrant doesn't break any laws and that they are employed. You may be required to post a bond. Every liberal or democrat I've spoken with on this subject is ALL talk. None of them EVER attempt to sponsor an illegal alien. Think if all liberals in the US just sponsored one illegal immigrant to become a citizen. Thing would change quite a bit.

If you are immigrating from another country, are here legally, and you break the law, you get deported. It takes time to be a US citizen. So, I never understand why people who immigrant into the United States legally are treated so poorly compared to those who come here illegally.

My relatives never got a dime of government money when they came here. People say "Well, not everyone has a family in the United States to help them."

True, but there are many, many private agencies that help immigrants coming to the United States with everything they need to become citizens. They provide everything from lawyers to housing and more.

Immigration is NOT a problem. Illegal immigration is the problem. Every time an illegal immigrant gets a benefit from living in the United States, it is a huge slap in the face to those who have obeyed the laws and come here legally. It's disrespectful and, in my opinion, disgusting.
reply report
78
Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago
Once, when hiking in the mountains with my children, we came upon some illegals drinking beers by a stream. As I approached, I noticed/saw one of the men face down in the stream. I could have jumped in, properly turned the man over, protecting his spine, and provided artificial resuscitation, as I had been trained to do. Instead, I called, "Your friend is drowning!"

They did not understand me and I had to point vigorously at the man face-down in the water. Then, I just kept walking and did not look back. Later, we noticed helicopters in the sky over the location. I'm sure he was rescued. Someone else had called 911.

With low reasoning, and a knee jerk emotional reaction, I should have treated their friend like any other person ... and saved him. However, I did not want to jeopardize my health. I had to protect myself first.
How selfish, right?
reply report
1. 85
  Misbah786posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  In my opinion, sometimes saving a stranger's or a friend's life is more satisfying and rewarding than saving your own.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  No. It is important to be wise and keep yourself safe first. Surely you jest. I had the superior responsibility as mother to my own children.
  I would not put my mouth on the mouth of an illegal alien. What germs they carry are from another country. My immune system is not prepared for the invasion of foreign germs.
  And this is a very relevant/appropriate argument on the large scale, big picture.
  reply report
  85
  Misbah786posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I would not put my mouth on the mouth of an illegal alien. What germs they carry are from another country. My immune system is not prepared for the invasion of foreign germs.
  
  Sorry, but I detected a few bacterias of hatred in your response. There was no jest in my response. I was absolutely serious. We all have our own perspectives, and I've just shared mine.
  
  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HU-P6VbLolI
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  You MUST understand the folly exposing oneself to the germs of a stranger. Even the American Red Cross does. Nevertheless, you are certainly allowed to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on anyone you want. - hope it works out well for you. I am not that brave, thats all. And I do have the right to my choice, for my own reasons.
  reply report
  78
  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  ... and, by the way, what about COVID?
  
  Lets say you are walking down the street, downtown. You come across a drunk lying near a wall who is choking and aspirating his own fluids. He passes out as you approach him. You could save him if you could just clear out his mouth and pump some air into his lungs.
  Ready?
  Survey the scene, do the preliminary checking, (make sure the victim is not breathing,) and call for someone to help you / call 911. Gently tip his chin up while placing your other hand on his forehead. Look into his mouth to see if he was choking on something. Pinch your fingers on his nose to prevent the escape of oxygen when you blow into his lungs. Keep his head back and his chin tipped gently upward to maintain a clear airway. Place your open mouth on his open mouth and make sure you have a good seal. Start your breathing and counting. Keep it up until another Good Samaritan shows up who can relieve you, or the paramedics come. If the victim regurgitates, even though he still unconscious, turn him on his side and sweep out the vomit
  
  It's one thing to be required to do it on the job.
  It's another thing to do it when you're not.
  And I have had to do it on the job.
  reply report
  85
  Misbah786posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I've seen people refuse to help others in very simple situations as well.
  reply report
85
Valeantposted 2 years ago
I'm just so confused. The right has been railing against Covid restrictions for months now. But they want this restriction left in place because it affects people of different races and nationalities. There's a term for that.

And instead of just expelling people, we can now go back to enforcing our laws on them. Considering somewhere between 25-30% of the encounters are repeats of people deported under Title 42, it's time to go back to a harsher deterrent.
reply report
1. 93
  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Don't you think there is a difference between irrational restrictions placed on citizens and one designed to discourage the flow of illegal immigrants into a country?
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Title 42 was a public health directive. It is not a policy meant to deal with immigration. Those processed under Title 42 are not allowed to file an application for asylum as a means to stop their expulsion. The removal of title 42 will reinstate migrants ability to apply for asylum.
  CDC Director Rochelle Walensky announced her agency would stop authorizing Title 42 on May 23, saying the expulsions of migrants are no longer necessary to protect public health.
  After Title 42 is lifted, Homeland Security Director Alejandro Mayorkas and other officials have said, the U.S. will strive to quickly deport migrants who don't qualify for asylum through regular deportations.
  So what's the issue?
  If you support keeping covid restrictions at the border then shouldn't we be maintaining them for the rest of the country?
  Should we just indefinitely use this health justification as it means to essentially close the border?
  reply report
  93
  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "If you support keeping covid restrictions at the border then shouldn't we be maintaining them for the rest of the country?"
  
  No. We should only take care of American citizens with COVID. We're not responsible for those coming here from other countries and are sick. Do you know that if you immigrate to the United States legally, you are required to get a medical exam? If you have certain diseases, you are sent back to your host country.
  
  "Should we just indefinitely use this health justification as it means to essentially close the border?"
  
  Close the border? That refers to the ability to come into the United States and then returning to a host country. So, "closing the border" doesn't apply.
  
  Should we use this as a way to cut down or eliminate illegal immigration.
  
  Yes. Again, we pay too much money for the healthcare for people who are not US citizens.
  
  I guarantee that if you or anyone who thinks like you would experience the legal immigration process with someone from another country, you would have an entire new view of the immigration process and illegal immigration.
  
  My wife's sister immigrated to Australia. You have NO idea everything she had to go through to become an Australian citizen. She's been there for years and still has a year to wait. Their immigration process is even more intense than ours.
  
  Illegal immagrants in Australia are not treated even a percent as good as they are in the United States. They don't pay even a percent on illegal immigrants as the United States does.
  
  The difference is amazing to me.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Did Title 42 discourage or encourage? Immigrants were no longer charged with their first attempt at illegally crossing the border and were just expelled under the policy. A slap on the wrist seems to be worth a second grab into the cookie jar based on the stats.
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

Mexicans are still the majority that are still illegally crossing the southern border.
reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
Biden faces rising numbers of migrants at the southern border - yet he considering doing away with Title 42. Biden creates problems, makes them worse, then ignores them. And taxpayers are left to pay for his mistakes. It is very much a possibility this year an all-time record will be reached for the number of illegal immigrants we will have admitted into the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … -pandemic/
reply report
85
Valeantposted 2 years ago
From CBP:

'The number of encounters at the border has been rising since April 2020 due to ongoing violence, natural disasters, food insecurity, and poverty in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America.'

'The large number of expulsions during the pandemic has contributed to a higher-than-usual number of migrants making multiple border crossing attempts, which means that total encounters somewhat overstate the number of unique individuals arriving at the border.'

February Report:
-30% are repeat attempts due to Title 42 compared to 14% in the five years prior to it existing.
-The number of unique individuals encountered nationwide in February 2022 was 116,678, a 2 percent increase in the number of unique individuals encountered the prior month.
-In total, there were 164,973 encounters along the Southwest land border in February, a 7 percent increase compared to January.
-91,513 encounters, 55 percent of the total, were processed for expulsion under Title 42. 73,460 encounters were processed under Title 8.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds like Biden to me. The number of repeat offenders went from 14% to 30%...due to Bidens reluctance to enforce our laws. That's not from "ongoing violence, natural disasters, food insecurity, and poverty in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America" - it's from Bidens reluctance to enforce our laws and his statements that he would make all illegals citizens.
  
  Heck, we saw that as the numbers heading for our border grew rapidly simply on the hopes that Biden would replace Trump.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I predict we see an all-time historical record for border crossings in 2022. We are already off and running to beat the all-time record. Biden has just sent out another irresistible invitation.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I predict it too, but because back in 2018 the Trump Admin ignored the reporting to the State Department about the Wuhan Lab and a virus then destroyed Central American economies. Whether it was Trump or Biden, the numbers would have increased as we have seen since April of 2020 - before Biden was elected.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  You misunderstand when the 30% began happening. 2019. All because of Trump's Title 42.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "Sounds like Biden to me. The number of repeat offenders went from 14% to 30%...due to Bidens reluctance to enforce our laws."
  
  No, this statement isn't accurately reflecting the mechanisms of Title 42.
  
  Once Title 42 was implemented at the U.S.-Mexico border, immigrants encountered by border patrol officers were sent back to Mexico within hours (sometimes as little as 15 minutes) or back to their country of origin within days without ANY immigration process.
  
  Under the title 42 rule , this meant "no legal consequence" to migrants who tried to cross between ports of entry.
  
  Without Title 42, There would be a consequence that would make it harder for them to come back legally under immigration law. So, by using Title 42, there was no consequence, and therefore what we saw was many immigrants, particularly Mexicans, who had been expelled back to Mexico, simply trying again and again . Ultimately fueling a significant increase in repeat border crossings.
  There has been estimates of individuals making as many as 30 attempts in a week to cross the border.
  
  Let's at least just acknowledge the facts and reality without constantly trying to find a way to pin partisan blame.
  
  So What will happen after Title 42 is discontinued?
  
  We will simply go back to processing any encounters across the border the way we always have under Title 8, which is the immigration authority that has always been in place throughout the history of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "Without Title 42, There would be a consequence that would make it harder for them to come back legally under immigration law. "
  
  I have heard a lot about this, as a criticism of Title 42 application. It doesn't make sense to me. It demands acceptance of the idea that the repeat offender illegal immigrants are concerned with legal consequences and wouldn't try again if they had been regularly processed and told no the first time.
  
  I am not pinning partisan blame, that reasoning just doesn't seem logical to me.
  
  GA
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  What are your theories to explain the jump from 14% (2014-2019) to 30% on the retry rate?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Take someone that has trekked a thousand miles to get to the border. They get caught and sent home, having to do it all over again in the hopes that they will make it and be able to skirt by INS inside the country if they do.
  
  Now take that same person, but add in the Biden stopped all deportations of anyone that escaped the border patrol and made into the interior. Add in that Biden cut Border Patrol and actively aids in getting into our interior. Next add in the the President declared he will make them a citizen. Now what has happened to the potential winnings if they can just get by that narrow strip of land at the border?
  
  Is it enough to encourage them to try again?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Biden was not able to stop all deportations. Terrorists and immigrants charged with serious crimes, as well as recent arrivals are all still able to be deported. But I get your point in the messaging his loosening of the enforcement has had.
  
  His budget does make a $428 million cut to border patrol ($12.8B total), but it's highly unlikely those get accepted by Congress. Bu he has also tried to pass legislation to get them more funding as well from Day 1 of his term.
  
  And his plan for the five-year pathway to citizenship applies to those who were already here and not new arrivals.
  
  But your points certainly do not negate mine either. To claim that Biden is the sole reason driving migration to the United States ignores many other contributing factors. And also ignores the role that Congress must play in making needed changes.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have a theory. I haven't considered the stats more deeply than as indicators. So I don't know the criteria that developed them. When I look at the assumptions made to justify them, (the `calculations' on "repeat offenders"), I don't care to go further, a fact based on assumption isn't a fact.
  
  The indications presented by the stats do matter, as information to be considered, but if I am not sure of their reliability—in the context they are being used, they don't mean a lot—in my view of this Title 42 tangent.
  
  I did look into the stats a bit, but the assumptions used to get them, on both sides, didn't fill me with confidence.
  
  GA
  reply report
61
Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago
I don't think it matters what's in the mind of illegal immigrants.
It is factual that Title 42 stopped the use of consequence delivery mechanisms under existing law.
It is also born out in the data that under title 42 It inflated the number of “border encounters” by quadrupling the number of repeat crossers durings the length it has been in place versus when it wasn't. In my opinion it seems fairly logical that it's been a failure as a policy. But I would also say that it has always been looked upon as a health measure by most and not a policy to meaningfully deal with immigration.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Your explanation makes some sense to me, and very likely is at least some of the reason for the increase in multiple efforts.
  
  But at the same time there is something else, some reason, that illegal crossings have grown so much under a President that openly states he will make anyone in the country a citizen, that refuses to enforce our laws, and transports illegal aliens into the heartland under cover of darkness. It isn't just title 42.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I have one thing to add... The bottom line, this move will be a big invitation to migrants to rush to the border. Again, poorly thought-out decisions will lead to massive people making their way to our borders.
  
  We have a president who at every turn makes poor decisions that end up causing more problems for American citizens.
  
  This year we will see astronomical numbers due to no one having the sense to stop offering incentives to make the long trip to our border.
  
  We can argue from now until we see these astronomical numbers come to fruition --- but the bottom line, we will see a huge surge at our border.
  
  WE have laws, one such law is the number of how many migrants we will admit in a given year. Ou courts are backed up, and unable to handle the cases on the books. We as a country have the right to close our borders to migrants due to the massive influx.
  
  Is it not time to do this, until we can handle the back logs?
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Thousands of migrants, mostly from Central America leave their homes to head to the border relying on what smugglers erroneously tell them.
  
  US officials say the increase in migrants arriving at the US-Mexico border is often a response to rumors of a "more humane" immigration policy and "disinformation" spread by smugglers. Or people are being outright told that the border is open. We have to remember that these smugglers are charging up to $15,000 to "guide" these folks.
  
  I certainly think that the idea that a more humane policy would be in place may have driven people to make that decision.
  
  As one migrant reports ,
  "The guides [smugglers] told me in Honduras that they will let me in if I brought my kid along, that they were letting in everybody with children,"
  
  But instead he was robbed during the journey and after crossing the border was quickly expelled to Mexico.
  
  Another..
  
  María, a woman from Guatemala also traveled with her 2- and 6-year-old daughters, arrived to find the border was not open, despite what smugglers told her in Guatemala..
  
  "They told me they have heard in the news that the US was letting in women with small children, because this new president was trying to be better than Trump. But they didn't even let us speak. They just sent us straight back to Mexico,"
  
  The INA allows the United States to grant up to 675,000 permanent immigrant visas each year across various visa categories. On top of those 675,000 visas, the INA sets no limit on the annual admission of U.S. citizens’ spouses, parents, and children under the age of 21. In addition, each year the president is required to consult with Congress and set an annual number of refugees to be admitted to the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
  
  Yes, the cap on refugees has been raised. The 2022 refugee cap is 125,000. Yet actual admissions continue to lag and the White House has admitted that the “goal [of 125,000 admissions] will be hard to hit” why? Because you correctly identified that there is a huge backlog.
  I understand that President Biden has plans to address the backlog.
  
  I have not read through all of it. I certainly invite people to take a look.
  
  Will changes be made in immigration policy? There have been no meaningful changes in decades and our government has become only more polarized. So I am definitely pessimistic.
  
  https://www.boundless.com/blog/biden-ad … n-backlog/
  
  https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … stem-works
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  My point --- I want our immigration laws enforced. I really don't care about the underlying problems at this point. I worry about overburdening our nation and paying for all the people coming across the border. As you mentioned, we are a nation that has an actual number stipulated of how many immigrants we take in a year. We can start thereby endorsing that law.
  
  We have good immigration laws, we need to follow them.
  
  We have criminals, drugs, and too many people entering the Country.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Here's what I understand. Correct and fact check me please.
  Other than halting the wall construction and now the removal of title 42, our current immigration policy remains the same as it was under the Trump administration.
  Researchers say little has changed in the way of federal border enforcement.
  One noticeable change that I do see in enforcement is how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) has reprioritized arrests to focus on undocumented immigrants who pose a threat to national security or public safety. This is in place of the indiscriminate raids of McDonald's and landscaping businesses. It's probably a better use of the agency's time to focus their energy and efforts on dangerous persons.
  I also see that President Biden has a plan, an immigration policy that has been stalled and I would bet the farm on it that we won't See any changes to immigration policy whether they are beneficial or not. The bitter partisanship will prevent anything from advancing.
  Policy doesn't matter anymore in this country. The goal is to just keep you blindly in line behind your guy or your team.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I think you will be surprised at the list of Biden's list of EO that affect the border.
  
  Too many to list, too many to dissect. But very interesting reading, much of what the media did not report.
  https://cmsny.org/biden-immigration-executive-actions/
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  The media never gets into this kind of depth. I appreciate the link. This is a big one but I'm going to wade through.
  
  It's also interesting to note that this long trend of governing by executive order. These orders are always undone immediately when the next party comes in to office.
  I don't think The history of extensive use, actually overuse of the executive order is always in the best interest of continuity in our country. But realistically in the past decade and increasing partisanship, executive order is the only recourse to getting anything done albeit temporary.
  reply report
85
Valeantposted 2 years ago
Looking at the backlog differently, is it reasonable to think that because it takes years to be granted asylum, that less people are attempting the legal process and instead trying to migrate illegally?

And Biden has repeatedly said our border is not open and don't come here. It's the right that makes the claim that Biden has open borders, when they actually are not. Perhaps the right could get on board with the messaging to help staunch the flow.

Lastly, you have to wonder how popular a Democrat who actually wanted to be tough at the border would be in the Oval Office. Someone who could whip up some votes to alter the laws to be tougher on illegal immigration.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  LOL What Biden says and what he does are two very different things.
  
  Consider:
  He stopped all deportations from the interior
  He stopped building the wall
  He promised to make anyone in the interior a citizen
  He aids in getting illegals into the interior, flying them in under cover of darkness
  
  These things are not the mark of anyone trying to close the border.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  As usual, you misconstrue many things:
  
  He did not stop all deportations from the interior. False claim.
  He did stop building the wall as the wall was breached over 3,000 times with common tools.
  He did not promise to make anyone in the interior a citizen. He proposed to have benchmarks that lead to a pathway that non-citizens have to achieve. False claim.
  He follows the law in settling people with legal asylum claims - something you always misconstrue and lie that these people are 'illegals' in some form of serious racism.
  
  Trying to build the economy by allowing those already here contributing to legally participate is something even Reagan did. And ending policies that clearly were failing like wasteful wall spending, makes more sense.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "He did not stop all deportations from the interior. False claim."
  
  You're right - he will still deport people that commit crimes beyond being here illegally, driving without a license or insurance, working illegally, etc. Only for dealing drugs, murder or other such crimes.
  
  Illegally crossing the border, along with all the other laws violated just by being here, are to be ignored. After all, the President is responsible for deciding which laws he wishes to enforce, right?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  'Illegally crossing the border, along with all the other laws violated just by being here, are to be ignored. After all, the President is responsible for deciding which laws he wishes to enforce, right?'
  
  Considering the punishment for illegally crossing the border can be as little as a fine, that could easily be written into the requirements to qualify for the pathway to citizenship he is proposing. The law then, is being followed.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  But it is not, is it? And of course if it was you still have living here illegally, working illegally, driving illegally, etc.
  
  But hey, if the President doesn't like a law he doesn't need to enforce it, right? After all, the President trumps Congress and it is OK to ignore Congress's laws.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  'But it is not, is it?' Better do some research on that one if you're so unsure. Sounds like a case of you not have the understanding of an issue and making things up as you go along.
  
  And Biden has proposed legislation that puts those who are contributing to our society on path to citizenship since the 20,000 ICE agents and the courts may not have the ability to deport 11 million people, logistically.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I'm not unsure at all - it was rhetorical question, intended to reinforce your knowledge.
  
  Sorry - proposing legislation to change the law does not give our President the right to violate the law as it stands now. I'm rather surprised that you don't appear to understand the difference between the legislative branch of our government and the Executive. I can understand Biden not understanding it, but you should know better.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Really, so the Executive Branch has never used an Executive order that went against current law? I'm rather surprised that you don't understand US history. Well, actually, I am not. But with the way the GOP used to idolize Reagan, most educated Republicans might have remembered when Reagan did just that.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I haven't checked, but I'm sure Obama, King of the Executive Order, violated law many times. You can start with the creation of a second class citizen; people that aren't really citizens, but treated as one anyway.
  
  Your inference is interesting; if someone else violates the law then everyone can (morally and ethically) do it. Does it include bank robbery, and is it just Presidents that can do it? Or perhaps those with power and money?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Not my inference. A historical and accepted fact of events that have happened as the Executive Branch has the authority to create policy. When states or Congress believe those policies violate laws, they often challenge them in court where the courts decide if they are lawful.
  
  The rest of your post is pure stupidity and if you continue making such ridiculous fabrications, consider our conversations at an end.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  According to your "logic", we can all own slaves...because some Presidents did. We can all enjoy a good bar fight, beating others with our cane, because a President did it. We can all have sex in the Oval Office because a President did it. We can all create our own watergate because a President was not punished for it. Anything a President did that they were not punished for we can do, too.
  
  And yes, that was exactly your inference; if one person does it and gets away with it then all can do it. Go back and read your post - that's what it infers. It may not be what you meant, but it is what you inferred, and you continue with the same thought process here, wherein it is OK as long as the President was not punished for it.
  
  I would disagree with that train of thought, whether you think it is stupid or not. The Executive Branch may create police, within the laws Congress has passed. Not outside of them, although it is often done - the rich and powerful very often get away with violating laws.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "You're right - he will still deport people that commit crimes beyond being here illegally, driving without a license or insurance, working illegally, etc. Only for dealing drugs, murder, or other such crimes. "
  
  When they can be caught. These types don't walk up to border agents and turn themselves in. Border agents have complained (and go unheard) about being treated too thin, and cannot keep up with those that just walk in and disappear into the country.
  
  We would be naive to think lawbreakers and drug mules would be presenting themselves to agents to be processed. And at any rate, Biden has made it easy for lawbreakers to enter America unfettered. Shortly after taking office Biden set new guidelines to include -- Just another illogical idea put forth by the Biden administration.
  
  "On February 7, 2021, Biden began the implementation of new guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, forbidding or restricting them from seeking out deportations on the basis of "drug based crimes (less serious offenses), simple assault, DUI, money laundering, property crimes, fraud, tax crimes, solicitation, or charges without convictions," as stated by Tae Johnson, the acting director of ICE, instead prioritizing "violent behavior, well-documented gang affiliations," and a record of child abuse, murder, rape, and major drug infractions.[4] Deportations merely on the basis of at least 10-year old felonies or "loose" gang affiliations would also be prevented. The guidelines also required permission from the director of ICE for agents to arrest suspects outside of jails and prisons." Guess we can pick and choose lawbreakers, and admit some while deporting others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrati … 0crimes%2C
  
  Not many really realize just how hard Biden is worked to admit lawbreakers into the country. Why, would be more the question? How could this type of guideline be justified or excepted by American citizens? Luckily enough the courts ruled against the Biden guideline, and it was stopped. However, while it was in effect, many migrants that fell under the disruption in the guideline were released into America. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigratio … den-judge/
  
  Comment edited due to current information that was offered by Val.
  
  /
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  The ICE guidelines have been struck down by the courts.
  
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigratio … den-judge/
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I have edited my comment to reflect the info you provided. Appreciate for the information.
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
It much appears Biden's bandaid is once again words, no actions, nothing to put one's finger on. No pushing Congress to revisit our current immigration laws or no actual idea's to help solve the border crisis. Just more words, no action, just ignoring a growing problem. A problem that will be historical in not only numbers but the cost to any American that pays taxes.

Biden's words --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo10ip4BdvI

Biden's deeds --- On his first day in office, he stopped the border wall. He suspended Trump's policy "Stay In Mexico https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr … y-n1269262

What is the stay in Mexico policy?
"Remain in Mexico" policy, officially titled Migrant Protection Protocols, requires immigrants seeking asylum to stay in Mexico while they wait for an immigration judge to consider their application.

Deeds --- "The Biden administration on Tuesday formally pulled the plug on former President Donald Trump's "remain in Mexico" policy, which forced tens of thousands of asylum-seekers from Central America to stay south of the U.S. border until their claims were heard." Biden Suspends Deportations, Stops 'Remain In Mexico' Policy Jan 21 2021 on his first day in office. Migrant border crossing increased to historic numbers monthly, to see the astronomic numbers we see today. Biden had no plan to curb the increase of migrants at the border. He has ignored the problem and clearly made the crisis worse.
reply report
1. 61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  No worries Sharlee, the second iteration of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP 2.0) promises to return just as many or more asylum seekers from the U.S.-Mexico border as its antecedent when the program expands in the coming months.
  
  https://www.courthousenews.com/calm-bef … -of-first/
  
  https://www.borderreport.com/regions/te … m-seekers/
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

New Twist to ever-ongoing Border Problems

Psaki won't agree to give Americans free smartphones even as they are handed to illegal immigrants

Earlier this week, Psaki said the phones were used to 'track' and 'check in' with illegal immigrants. "The White House is defending the Biden administration's ongoing efforts of "tracking" illegal immigrants through cell phones that are given to them ahead of court proceedings.

Asked Friday by Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy whether the administration had a "plan to give free smartphones to U.S. citizens" who wanted them, White House press secretary Jen Psaki asked, "Should we not be tracking migrants who irregularly cross the border?" "Well, it'd be great if anybody that wanted a free phone and a free monthly plan could get one," Doocy responded. "So is that going to be an offer for everybody or just people that walk into the country illegally?

"Well, Peter, as when we talked about this the other day, what I noted to you is that we have a range of means of tracking individuals who irregularly migrate to the country in order to ensure that they are meeting their notice to appear obligations and that they are appearing in court when they should appear in court," Psaki said. "Phones is one of them."

Asked about the initiative on Wednesday, Psaki dismissed concern that the phones would be thrown away by recipients and said handing out smartphones "is all part of our effort as individuals come into the United States and individuals who are entering who will proceed to immigration proceedings to monitor and track where they are."

"Psaki said Biden will soon be "traveling the country," but she had "nothing to predict" or "specifics" on whether he would make his first trip to the southern border as border towns prepare for a large influx of migrants amid the administration's plan to terminate the use of Title 42 to expel migrants at the border." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/psaki- … nts-phones

Once again a ridiculous expenditure, that absolutely makes no sense. It's like we have illiterates running this country.

Who is paying for these phones, the services, and did these phones come from China?

This is by far the dumbest thing I have seen from this bunch of idiots. So embarrassing on so many levels.
reply report
1. 85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Not a new initiative. This is a 2016 article. There was another one from 2012. Only new thing is the outrage about it.
  
  https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-02 … story.html
  reply report
2. 85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  More information about this policy and when it began, the limits on the phones, and the way they were falsely misconstrued as a smear.
  
  https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-b … 11802.html
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  It appears to make sense in terms of tracking noncitizens who are awaiting their immigration court hearing, already have a deportation order, or whom the agency otherwise decides warrants monitoring. More sense than building more detention facilities. The use of electronic monitoring seems to have largely increased under President Biden. I love to see if we have some numbers on increased compliance in terms of migrants' court appearances and potential deportation orders, preventing them from simply disappearing into the country. What's the impact?
  https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/678/
  reply report
85
Valeantposted 2 years ago
Highly doubt this would be on Fox News...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mexico-agree … 24879.html

Last month, amid the latest surge of migrants crossing the southern border, U.S. officials in the Border Patrol’s Del Rio sector in Texas contacted officials in the Mexican government to request their assistance to defer migrant traffic away from the sector’s overwhelmed ports of entry.

According to a government document obtained by Yahoo News, Mexican officials agreed to help and enlisted the state police in the Mexican state of Coahuila, which borders Texas, to activate “tactical checkpoints” at four locations to interdict migrants traveling to the U.S. border.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  That's great! Does it mean we can now bring back the state police governors have sent to help the Border Patrol control the border? Or must a handful of states continue to provide the resources necessary as Biden moves border crossers to the interior where he refuses to deport anyone?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  More lies. You've gotten to your usual false posts much earlier than usual.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry - I live in one of those states that sent troops and it was highly publicized. Your ignorance does not excuse calling me a liar simply because you don't like the truth.
  
  https://www.newsweek.com/these-four-sta … on-1604722
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Not what you lied about.
  
  '...where he refuses to deport anyone.' I already debunked that and you even agreed. Yet you decide to repeat it, posting something you clearly know to be false.
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
The Democrats are becoming concerned over Joe's Borde Problems, and his lack to solve them or a best not make things worse.

"New York Times White House correspondent Zolan Kanno-Youngs said Sunday on CNN's "Inside Politics" that the Democratic backlash to the Biden administration's decision to lift Title 42 "shows the anxiety of what high border crossings would mean politically."

"Host Abby Phillip asked Kanno-Youngs about his recent piece in the New York Times on the administration's move to repeal the Trump-era public health order and the resultant concerns that Democrats could get crushed in the midterms

."We are now seeing more Dems than we've seen since Title 42 was implemented by the Trump administration that have come out in support of restoring this thing or have come out criticizing the Biden administration's plan to lift it," Kanno-Youngs said, noting that Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-GA., has even come out against the plan to lift it. He said that the concern was "reflected in the White House."

The New York Times reporter said that President Biden's Chief of Staff Ron Klain in the Summer of 2021 was also approaching senior aides "saying yes, this is something, this is an issue that could impact the midterms here.

"…As well as the entire team within the White House and DHS as well at times scrambling for to try to find a solution, even if it was embracing Trump-era policies at the border to try and deter illegal crossings. It really shows that deterrence, and it shows the anxiety of what high border crossings would mean politically," Kanno-Youngs continued.

The New York Times' piece, written by Kanno-Youngs, Eileen Sullivan and Michael D. Shear, is headlined "Disagreement and Delay: How Infighting over the Border Divided the White House."

The paper reported that discussion over repealing the former president's immigration policies in the face of an infux of migrants at the southern border caused bickering among senior aides and White House officials.

"Mr. Biden grew so angry at their attempts to duck responsibility that he erupted," the piece said, noting that Biden asked who he needed to "fire." The piece also noted that almost all the aides that were brought on early in his presidency have left their positions.

The New York Times reported that both Klain and Susan Rice, Director of the Domestic Policy Council, were worried that lifting Title 42 would increase the migrant surge at the border and that it might be seen as premature if a potential new COVID variant emerges.

Several Democrats have slammed the decision to lift Title 42 as they consider warnings of a migrant influx at the border in the coming months.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, recently signed on to legislation that would halt the lifting of the measure. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Arizona Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly are among other Democrats that have warned against ending Title 42.

"Ending Title 42 without a comprehensive plan in place puts at risk the health and safety of migrants and Arizona communities," Sinema said.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york- … olitically

Many In Congress are predicting we will see an all-time record of migrants will come across the border, following Biden's decision. In my view, this problem will snowball into costing billions. Governors are already objecting to having migrants left off in their states, claiming that their taxpaying will pay for Biden's poor decision-making. Recently the Governor of Texas said he will be offering migrants free bus rides to Washington DC. And Florida Governor offered the same deal, but the busses will drop migrants off in Delaware.

I am willing to look at the bright side, yes, Biden is digging the country into a deep hole. with his illogical policies, and will cause the country more headaches. I feel confident all the crazy will be "Gone with the wind" come 2024.
reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
Thursday, March 24, 2022
"Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security Issue Rule to Efficiently and Fairly Process Asylum Claims "

"Today, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are issuing a rule to improve and EXPEDITE the processing of asylum claims made by noncitizens subject to expedited removal, ensuring that those who are eligible for asylum are granted relief QUICKLY, and those who are not are promptly removed.

The rule authorizes asylum OFFICERS within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to consider the asylum applications of individuals subject to expedited removal who assert a fear of persecution or torture and pass the required credible fear screening.

Currently, such cases are decided only by immigration JUDGES within the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

Due to existing court backlogs, the process for hearing and deciding these asylum cases currently takes several years on average. When fully implemented, the reforms and new efficiencies will shorten the process to several months for most asylum applicants covered by this rule.

“This rule advances our efforts to ensure that asylum claims are processed fairly, expeditiously, and consistent with due process,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “It will help reduce the burden on our immigration courts, protect the rights of those fleeing persecution and violence, and enable immigration judges to issue removal orders when appropriate. We look forward to receiving additional input from stakeholders and the public on this important rule.”

“The current system for handling asylum claims at our borders has long needed repair,” said Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “Through this rule, we are building a more functional and sensible asylum system to ensure that individuals who are eligible will receive protection more swiftly, while those who are not eligible will be rapidly removed. We will process claims for asylum or other humanitarian protection in a timely and efficient manner while ensuring due process.”

Under the rule, individuals who receive a positive credible fear determination will receive a timely interview with an asylum officer to elicit all relevant and useful information about their asylum claim. Following an interview, USCIS will decide whether to grant asylum and, if necessary, determine the applicant’s eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Any individual who is not granted asylum by USCIS will be referred for a removal proceeding before an immigration judge. The rule establishes streamlined procedures for these removal proceedings, designed to promote efficient resolution of the case.

The rule will not apply to unaccompanied children, and it will only apply to individuals who are placed into expedited removal proceedings on or after its effective date. The rule will be implemented in phases, starting with a limited number of individuals and subsequently expanding as the USCIS Asylum Division receives additional resources and builds capacity.

This rule modifies the NPRM’s proposal in response to public comments received following the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued by DHS and the Department of Justice in August 2021. The rule will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The Departments encourage further public comment on the rule during the 60-day comment period for the Departments to consider. Details for submitting public comments are in the rule" source

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- … ly-process

"The new process is part of an effort to shorten the time between when an immigrant crosses the border and the ruling on whether they should be deported or allowed to stay in the United States.

Under the new rule, if an asylum officer grants protections to an immigrant, the immigrant can remain in the U.S. and bypass immigration courts."
source https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigr … -rcna21313

Asylum OFFICERS will now take the place of judges to determine if an asylum seeker will be permitted to the US.

So, what I found is that thus far although the Government is trying to her more Asylum officers -- "How many asylum officers are there in the US?
Currently, there are about 300 Asylum Officers working at eight offices in Arlington (Virginia), Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Newark (New Jersey), and San Francisco." Source -- https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … 202-05.pdf

"The administration estimated last year that it would need to hire 800 more employees for asylum officers to handle about 75,000 cases a year. Without more money and new positions, it is unclear how much impact the move will have at first."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/n … re-quickly

So, does any of this make any sense at this point or will Biden's new policy just cause a bigger problem?

Seems like this new brainstorm will cause lots of problems and money. I would love to know who came up with this idea.
reply report
1. 89
  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  That does not make sense to me. Not because of the specifics, but because of the direction. It's the wrong direction. Efforts should be to control the flow, not expedite it.
  
  Consider this: At its most basic level an asylum claim process, whether by a judge or immigration officer, is currently rarely more than hearing the claims of an identity-unverified person and choosing to believe them or not.
  
  There are exceptions of those in some database somewhere, but I would guess that is a tiny number compared to the majority number. So, what else does the decider have to go on?
  
  Expediting action on the tiny minority isn't an improvement when it also expedites the outflow of the vast majority.
  
  GA
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "That does not make sense to me. Not because of the specifics, but because of the direction. It's the wrong direction. Efforts should be to control the flow, not expedite it."
  
  We agree, and the policy as written admits to wanting to expedite the flow.
  
  "Today, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are issuing a rule to improve and EXPEDITE processing of asylum claims made by noncitizens subject to expedited removal, ensuring that those who are eligible for asylum are granted relief quickly, and those who are not are promptly removed."
  
  I can only speculate why the Biden administration would come up with this policy. Perhaps to expedite the historic number of migrants that will accumulate due to canning title 42 over the remaining of his presidency.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "At its most basic level an asylum claim process, whether by a judge or immigration officer, is currently rarely more than hearing the claims of an identity-unverified person and choosing to believe them or not.
  
  You make it sound very arbitrary.
  
  How Does the Asylum Officer Determine if I Am Eligible for Asylum?
  The asylum officer will determine if you are eligible for asylum by evaluating whether you meet the definition of a refugee. See section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). We will make the determination of whether you meet the definition of a refugee based on information you provide on your application and during an interview with an asylum officer.
  
  The asylum officer will also consider whether any bars to asylum apply. You will be barred from being granted asylum if you:
  
  Ordered, incited, assisted, or participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion
  Were convicted of a serious crime (including aggravated felonies)
  Committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States
  Pose a danger to the security of the United States
  Were firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.
  
  There's a lot missing from these discussions of asylum. The different types of asylum claims have not even been discussed at all. Those being defensive and affirmative paths.
  Good luck to anyone who wants to simplistically reduce the complexities of immigration down "My side is right and yours is wrong" conclusion.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Geez FayettevilleFaye, it's a blow to my ego that you would think I didn't know the details involved in my boiled-down statement. It's not a mortal blow, but I do feel a little wounded.
  
  On top of that, the details you provide seem to support just how arbitrary that initial decision is.
  
  "We will make the determination of whether you meet the definition of a refugee based on information you provide on your application and during an interview with an asylum officer."
  
  I think it is a safe assumption that a large majority of the thousands lined up to make their claim have no identity or identity-related documentation to present.
  
  So from the first step in the process, they tell their story and the interviewer checks the databases to catch those such as you listed, (the small minority that I mentioned), finds nothing, and now has to decide to believe the story or reject it. Or pass it along for the next step to figure it out.
  
  The initial interviewers have nothing more than the words of the claimants. To believe or not believe. That is an arbitrary decision. But, it was only the first decision in the process. what are the next steps?
  
  From that point, all I have is, (leading), questions. Is the next step the new immigration officers mentioned? What more information do they have to make their decision, is it still just "believe or don't believe"?
  
  I would gamble that research will show that, with that small minority of exceptions, just how the rest of the steps, between the initial interview and the bus to the parking garage, bus station, or airport, are decided. *Remember, we are talking about the majority that isn't in any databases or presenting any verification paperwork.
  
  I think my first thoughts were accurate.
  
  GA
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I don't understand the difference between your post and that of GA. Both appear to say that the judge or other authority listens to the applicant and decides whether to believe them or not. Very seldom is there any supporting evidence.
  
  What am I missing?
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  More to it tan that---
  https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia … ation.html
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
Judges Grant More Asylum Grant Under Biden --

Under the new Biden administration, asylum seekers are seeing greater success rates in securing asylum. While asylum denial rates had grown ever higher during the Trump years to a peak of 71 percent in FY 2020, they fell to 63 percent in FY 2021. Expressed another way, success rates grew from 29 percent to 37 percent under President Biden.

reply report
1. 85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Very Fox News of you to consciously delete the info about only 23,000 cases heard in 2021 versus 60,000 in 2020. And that the actual total granted asylum were only half of what it was in 2020.
  
  And it sounds like your argument is that if we just don't honor asylum claims by hampering the system into not being able to hear them, then those seeking asylum can never enter our country. How humane.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Given the numbers, and given the coaching to lie that they receive, it is not a matter of "humane". It is a matter of just how many people we wish to support. We are not the nursery for the world; we are not responsible for everyone in the world that wants a better life. Nor do we have the resources to provide that for them even if we didn't mind if we destroy our culture, society and country in the process.
  
  It is common for liberals to provide "arguments" that consist primarily of tears and not facts or reasoning, but some of us disagree with that process and prefer reasoning.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Some serious projection there considering the amount of fact-free posts you make that undermine your claim, with wild exaggerations to the fringe and ridiculous guess-work about other people's motives.
  
  And are you aware of the ceiling numbers that Congress allocated for those claiming asylum? Sounds like a fact someone should be aware of. I always love hearing about culture considering America has always been a melting pot of cultures except to conservative white people.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  The bottom line is many of these people are breaking our laws by walking in illegally and disappearing into the country. Not intending to turn themselves in. We are more or less lifting all deterrents. Actually, we are making it very inviting for people to break our laws. Yes, the liberals will use the word humane... IMO, many of them don't really give a crap about laws. That should be clear in regard to our immigration laws. To support laymen to do the job of judges should warn you of that. For some to fall back on the humane BS should be expected. It's just a way of negating common sense.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "It is common for liberals to provide "arguments" that consist primarily of tears and not facts or reasoning, but some of us disagree with that process and prefer reasoning.
  
  Again, what?! Who are these "liberals" that you speak of? And how are they ALL exactly the same? There are no so-called liberals that have reason? Really?
  Really? All liberals and I assume you use it term to mean all Democrats? They all think exactly the same way?
  These generalizations and oversimplifications are too much.
  
  What other groups are all the same? Republicans? Catholics? Jews? As long as you put a label on a group it makes them homogenous?
  Good God no wonder we have such division in our country today.
  This kind of language is just so counterproductive.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  That comment was in direct response to a post that gave, as it's primary evidence, that we are not "humane". No other reasoning, just that we are not humane.
  
  Watch the border videos and arguments; which ones are presenting facts and figures and which ones are crying that children are separated from incarcerated parents? Which ones look at the poverty and cry out that illegals "just want a better life"? Which ones look at the damage done ranchers and which ones look at the figures for human trafficking, gun and drug importation? Which ones actually examine costs to our country and which ones simply state that we can't do without the illegals?
  
  Now which ones come from liberals and which ones come from conservatives?
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I tried to resist butting in, but I kept coming back to a thought. Labels are a useful messaging tool. They aren't bad until they are used badly, and then they are just what you describe:
  
  Their purpose is to present a generalization and simplification to carry a message of a common perspective, not that they are all the same. In this case, I think "liberals" is a fair and proper generalization. Especially when it didn't carry the baggage of `all.'
  
  When you stick "all" onto a label they become wrong and divisive, just as you say, but that wasn't the case here.
  
  GA
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Considering the conspiracy theory nut jobs littered among the Republican Party currently, generalizing liberals, which many can read as all due to the sloppily written nature of the accusation, as not providing arguments using facts was some serious projection.
  
  You may argue the semantics of how many liberals were being accused, but the general argument is still ridiculous in nature, devoid of any means of proving said ridiculous statement.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't arguing the semantics of anything, I was arguing the derogatory criticism of the use of labels. I wouldn't make the same argument for your use of labels. It fit Faye's description nicely.
  
  I agree with one aspect of her description, labels are a generalization, I did read the context from this "liberals" as one of generalization—but open to discussion, and argument. Which is the point where facts might be introduced as support.
  
  Your use was different, your use was not generalized, and is open for argument only. You leave no room discussion, just a `you are wrong and I am right' challenge. What if that "serious projection" did have valid support? What if the initial statement could be a bit of hyperbole, but was still defensible?
  
  I bet some Google U alum can find a study somewhere that speaks to the emotion vs. reason claims against those holding a liberal ideology. (you know, Liberals)
  
  When I hear support or criticisms based on words like humane, or `the children', my first thought is that the force behind them is emotional.
  
  I don't think the argument is ridiculous at all, when taken as a generalization I agree with it. So now what? A link battle of anecdotes, opinion pieces, or even study conclusions? A side battle of link credibility? O
  
  [EDITS ADDED]
  
  GA
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
In my opinion, I feel we have immigration laws, and I feel they should be followed. Immigrants that are deemed or deserve an asylum hearing should have a lawful hearing. The US offers this privilege.

I posted a chart in a previous comment that has drawn attention. The chart offers factual stats. Oddly enough In 2021, only 23,000 asylum cases were heard in our immigration courts, as the chart indicates. I compared this to previous years, even in 2020 when we were experiencing a true crisis in the Country, the COVID pandemic. The courts handed down 60,000 asylum decisions. Another fact --- Under the new Biden administration, asylum seekers are seeing greater success rates in securing asylum. While asylum denial rates had grown ever higher during the Trump years to a peak of 71 percent in FY 2020, they fell to 63 percent in FY 2021. Expressed another way, success rates grew from 29 percent to 37 percent under President Biden. The chart clearly shows this to be factual.

Our immigration problems are growing worse by the month. And the Biden administration now will rip off the Title 42 bandaid. Yes, not a fix-all, but was helping expeditiously return illegal immigrants to their home country, due to current COVID concerns. Which are still being reported as a concern.

In my view, it well appears the immigration courts have become broken down, and now Biden has seen fit to create a new policy of appointing Border Officers to do the job of the immigration Judges. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4238303

Is it just me or is this a hair-brained idea to just scoot along with anyone that walks across the border?
reply report
1. 85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  When Covid restrictions are a nuisance for the American right, they complain and hold trucker rallies to protest to get them removed. When similar restrictions are removed for immigrants, they complain again. Seems like the American right is going to just be a bunch of complainers no matter what is done.
  
  And the fact that only 8,700 immigrants were granted asylum in 2021, less than half from 2020 when it must have been one of the lowest numbers on record due to the US being one of the worst countries in terms of Covid response, it appears that there is room for some expansion to get back to normal numbers.
  
  But here are some stats that might help explain why Biden is lending a hand to border judges:
  
  When President Donald Trump assumed office, 542,411 people had deportation cases pending before the Immigration Courts. At the start of 2021, that number now stands at 1,290,766—nearly two and a half times the level when Trump assumed office just four years ago. Waiting in the wings are another 300,000+ cases that President Trump's policy changes have decided aren't finally resolved, but have not yet been placed back on the active docket.
  
  The primary driver of the exploding backlog was not only the lack of immigration judges but the tsunami of new cases filed in court by the Department of Homeland Security.
  
  Even if the Administration halted immigration enforcement entirely, it would still take more than President-Elect Biden's entire first term in office—assuming pre-pandemic case completion rates—for the cases now in the active backlog to be completed.
  
  https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/637/
  
  Biden is trying to solve a problem in helping to clear the backlog of asylum cases in the system. And, like others here, ignoring the asylum approval rate to make a statement like 'Is it just me or is this a hair-brained idea to just scoot along with anyone that walks across the border?' seems to be a willful fabrication considering you provided the actual stats earlier in this thread.
  reply report
61
Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago
well from what I can see the new rule is intended to shorten the time between an immigrant crossing the border and the ruling on whether they will be deported or allowed to stay in the U.S.
If an asylum officer decides an immigrant is not eligible for asylum, the case will go to an immigration judge who must decide within 90 days whether the immigrant should be deported.
Supposedly this is meant to help with the immense backlog and get decisions to immigrants more quickly. Asylum seekers will have their claims evaluated by asylum officers instead of overburdened immigration judges under this new policy. I don't really see that as a negative.
Over the past decades, really very little has changed in immigration policy.
In fact, President Biden has kept some of Trump’s worst immigration policies in place. Nothing has really changed.
It's the same old same old..

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/ … ke-Trump-s

https://www.newstatesman.com/white-hous … ald-trumps

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/immigrati … der-issues
reply report
1. 81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Faye more goes into an asylum hearing than just an explanation of why the migrant is seeking asylum The migrant is appointed an attorney if requested, and the attorney builds a case with evidence along with witnesses if possible. There is a check of fingerprints and criminal records ( if one has been accumulated). The judge hears the case and decides whether to give the person asylum.
  https://immigrationequality.org/asylum/ … oceedings/
  
  How long is asylum officer training?
  Basic Training The program, which lasts 13 weeks, is designed to give new immigration and customs enforcement or immigration agents a complete understanding of basic immigration law, detention and fingerprinting procedures, interviewing techniques and the detection and seizure of contraband.
  
  Is this training sufficient to grant asylum? It is now... On one hand a judge or someone that was trained for 13 weeks. https://www.rampfesthudson.com/how-long … ng-course/
  
  The Government currently is trying to her 1000 asylum offices and train them to handle the job that judges have been required to do.
  
  This is unacceptable to me. It is irresponsible, and clearly a way to flood the country with migrants.
  
  Yes, the courts are backed up and have been for many years, and due to the historic new encounters they are becoming even more backed up. Common sense dictates we need to address the problem, which should include deterring people from coming to our border until our backlogs can be cleared. Under Biden, the fact is we are seeing astronomical numbers, and I predict we will see a record-breaking number until we get a new President.
  
  You can make excuses but the fact is our immigration problems have become far worse under Biden. At any rate, this is my opinion, and the stars have provided me with facts to derive my opinion.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, President Biden will use Asylum Officers to evaluate immigrants claims.
  I took a look at the basic requirements to become an Asylum Officer.
  
  First, they must pass the background check, it is necessary to be a citizen with a good record. Immigration authorities may require drug testing as part of the job application as well. When positions open up, candidates for jobs can submit applications and if they meet the basic requirements, they will be sent a questionnaire or asked to sit for the civil service exam. The outcome of this test determines whether a candidate is called in for an interview.
  
  There are two options people can use to qualify to become an asylum officer. One is to hold a college or university degree, preferably a master's, law degree, or doctorate degree. The subject of the degree should align with immigration topics; political science, for example, would be an acceptable field of study for someone who plans to become an asylum officer. The other option is to build up experience in the civil service by working in other positions within the immigration department and achieving a civil service rank high enough to apply for a job opening.
  
  I think I feel confident with these requirements and qualifications.
  
  https://www.wise-geek.com/how-do-i-beco … fficer.htm
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  One needs to ask why Biden has made this new policy? In my own view --- this is unacceptable, and once again a weak solution to a huge problem, a weak solution that will result in creating a larger problem --- which Biden has a history of doing. We will see a record number of migrants entering our country due to his mistakes. AN ALL-TIME RECORD. I am sorry to say, I feel your view in regard to the new policy, somewhat lacks common sense. The bottom line --- these migrants are breaking our laws by entering illegally. We have asylum laws, and just walking in is not one of them. So, if they wait for a year or two or more, that is due to their own poor judgment. We need not bend over to accommodate lawbreakers.
  
  Biden is now using Asylum Officers that have had 13 weeks of training versus Judges that are well educated in their field, with years of experience.
  Court hearings are more detailed where the migrant has an attorney and must produce documents, and evidence, along with a check into their fingerprints, and if they have a criminal record. This in no respect compares with a one-on-one with a one-person asking questions. All to expedite an asylum claim.
  
  https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia … ation.html
  https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refu … g-programs
  https://work.chron.com/train-immigratio … 28451.html
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Well from what I can see the new procedures are meant to speed up asylum claims and deportations at the U.S. southern border. They will now decide cases in months instead of years.
  
  Doing a little more reading I see that Asylum Officers aren't really a new category. Until now, asylum officers have only done initial screenings for asylum and other forms of humanitarian relief for border arrivals. They will now move into a greater role as has already been identified.
  
  Attorney General Merrick Garland said the new procedures will ease burdens on immigration courts, which are part of the Justice Department. Asylum claims for people who are not detained take an average of nearly four years to decide.
  
  Under the new rules, asylum officers expect to decide cases in 90 days. Rejected applicants will be sent to immigration judges, who also expect to issue decisions in 90 days. The expedited removal and apprehension process largely remains unchanged.
  
  Also something I learned. At present, Asylum Officers decide asylum cases when they arise within the United States; in 2020, they completed nearly 79,000 applications in the "affirmative asylum "caseload. The border has been treated differently because asylum applicants are already in removal proceedings for having crossed the border without authorization, and so they enter a separate and much slower “defensive asylum” process before the immigration courts. The proposed rule would permit border asylum cases to be decided by asylum officers, as all other asylum cases are, with immigration courts then serving more like an appellate body should a denied applicant seek review. The Asylum officers already do what is known as the credible-fear screening of those making claims for protection at a U.S. border to determine whether the person has a “significant possibility” of establishing eligibility for asylum. So I do feel they have a good grasp of what's going on already.
  
  Also, it is stated that judges will be able to complete cases faster with detailed documentation from asylum officers.
  
  But looking for the opposite view as I really always try to do I see other views. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, said the change will move asylum seekers so quickly through the immigration courts that they probably won't be able to get lawyers in time and will likely have to represent themselves.
  
  "These timelines are punishing, brutal, and will almost certainly prevent the vast majority of asylum seekers going through this system from being able to obtain lawyers,"
  
  So while some feel this will flood our country with immigrants others feel it is going to deny so many more.
  
  https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/bi … posed-rule
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "It is irresponsible, and clearly a way to flood the country with migrants."
  
  That should not be a surprise - it has been a liberal (and to a lesser degree a conservative) policy for years. Both sides have their reasons and neither side looks beyond today to understand what their policies are accomplishing.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I am done conversing with some here, waste of time. I have lost respect for some here, and my going back and forth with them only stands to make me look as unintelligent. I guess you have ascertained, that I have no real use for liberal ideologies or those that push them.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Ahhh but on the flip side immigration's rights groups believe that there are concerns with the new plan. Some advocates fear it could be used in a way to speed up deportations without due process.
  
  "While we appreciate that the Biden administration made a number of positive changes to the regulation in response to the comments, we are gravely concerned about the timeframes proposed in the regulation," attorney and American Immigration Counsel policy analyst Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said Thursday. "Studies have consistently showed that one of the most important factors in determining whether a person can win asylum is whether they are able to obtain a lawyer. Because these timelines will make it more difficult to obtain an attorney, the rule as written would gravely increase the risk of an unjust denial of asylum."
  
  https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-a … d=83647931
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  It is my impression that only a very small minority of applicants actually fit the bill for asylum. They have been misled by idiots thinking that if they just make the claim they can overload the system and remain in the country longer. Reasonable, as that is exactly what we are seeing happen.
  
  But for myself, it is always a few that ruin a good thing for the many, and that, too, is exactly what we're seeing. Asylum as become, not a helping hand but a game wherein hundreds of thousands of people play in the hopes they can slip by with they should not.
  reply report
2. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Odd, isn't it, that when Trump did it there was screaming, wailing and gnashing of teeth. When Biden does the same thing it is quietly accepted and forgotten.
  
  How does that work again?
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  It works by actually leaving your right-wing media bubble and viewing liberal media to see that some are actually screaming, wailing, and gnashing teeth.
  
  It works by changing a channel.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  No immigration does not look the same. One only needs to look at the vast numbers that are walking in. Common sense should tell anyone we are dealing with record-breaking numbers. The bottom line the migrants see he is letting all in, and accommodating them with new policies.
  
  The stats tell it all... And it will be so much worse, now that this fool sent out another invitation. That reads "Come on in, no hassle no wait".
  
  "We have people with 13 weeks of training going to send you right on in."
  "No more judges!"
  "Plus no more Title 42 to worry about, make the trip ya won't be sorry!"
  
  2024 can't come fast enough for me.
  reply report
85
Valeantposted 2 years ago
reply report
85
Valeantposted 2 years ago
The international agreement governing asylum is where the invitation exists. The US laws should get an update because one has to be present in the United States to make an asylum claim. Liberals care about laws, but understand there is an international agreement at play here that is in direct contradiction to a law. The US has said one thing is acceptable (crossing the border to make an asylum claim) while saying the same thing is illegal in their border entry laws.

Sounds like something Congress could easily fix by stating that asylum claims need to happen at ports of entry or embassies to be considered.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  That might be useful...except that migrants are being coached to do just that in an effort to remain in the country. Knowing that their asylum claim is bunk, they are still being coached to say the words.
  
  It is this kind of thing that makes it so difficult to be reasonable or, sometimes, even do the right thing.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Combining an asylum claim at a port or embassy, with a remain in Mexico policy could work to dissuade many. Then toughen up the penalties for illegally crossing the border and those might be solutions.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  It might. But, IMO, the fault lies with our policies within the country more than without.
  
  Encouraging and aiding illegals to stay, hiring them illegally and refusing to deport them are far bigger issues, particularly the hiring of illegal aliens. Take away the incentive and the numbers will fall drastically, including the false claims for asylum.
  reply report
  61
  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe the fines and penalties for hiring undocumented workers Should be more substantial? But actually have they ever really been enforced?
  The Pew Research Center estimates there are 7.5 million unauthorized workers in the United States concentrated in agriculture, construction and the hospitality industry. could these industries continue to function in their current manner without these workers?
  The workplace raids under the Trump administration really highlighted just how many illegal immigrants were working in these industries.
  One such raid was on a chicken processing plant in Mississippi. Agents rounded up 680 workers!
  
  Across the country, immigrants who are in the country unlawfully often do manual, low-paying jobs, and employers say they have no choice but to rely on them.
  
  So if not immigrants, then who will do the tough, repetitive low paying jobs in America?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  As far as I know they have never really been enforced. I agree with you - first finish the ID system for workers and then make the penalties tough - tough enough that after 3 or 4 fines you are out of business.
  
  It's interesting that everyone thinks illegals (they are not immigrants as they have not followed the laws to immigrate to the US) hold only low paying jobs.
  
  Most construction is NOT "low paying" - they are more than sufficient to support a family. Yes, if you're picking strawberries in the field you aren't earning much, but I've watched as illegal aliens have virtually taken over parts of the construction industry.
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
Biden's Border Crisis - Is It About To Get Worse?
Well, may not for Floridians.

Florida Gov. DeSantis says funds are in place to bus illegal migrants out of his state
Florida will have access to the funds appropriated for relocating illegal immigrants when DeSantis signs the new budget sometime before July 1

"Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis remains adamant that he will transport illegal immigrants placed in Florida elsewhere, despite the White House recently dismissing a similar proposal from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as a "publicity stunt."

A spokesperson for DeSantis' office clarified to Fox News Digital that the transport of illegal immigrants out of Florida was included in the governor's recent budget recommendations. The budget proposed by the State Legislature includes $12 million for the Florida Department of Transportation to remove illegal immigrants from Florida and
relocating them.

"The legislature delivered on this priority, along with many of the governor’s other priorities to protect Floridians from the harmful impacts of the Biden border crisis," a spokesperson for DeSantis said.

DeSantis has proposed Delaware or Martha’s Vineyard as a destination for such migrants, but his office explained that they could also be sent "to other ‘progressive' states whose governors endorse blatant violations of federal immigration law."

"It is not the responsibility of Floridians to subsidize aliens to reside in our state unlawfully; we did not consent to Biden’s open-borders agenda," his office said, adding that Florida will have access to the funds appropriated for the provision when he signs the new budget sometime before July 1."

Looks like This Governor is thinking ahead, and problem-solving for the people of Florida. Will other Governors do the same?
reply report
85
Valeantposted 2 years ago
I'm confused. In the previous post, it said that these people were illegal immigrants. In other reporting, it confirms that these people were processed by Homeland Security and voluntarily agreed to be relocated from Texas.

In essence then, Texas is running a taxi service at their taxpayer's expense for legal migrants who may want to get to other family and friends currently already in the US.
reply report
61
Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago
To me, this is political theater just like the gender bills , CRT and the whole bucket of culture war issues. Especially when you see governors competing to one up each other on grandstanding. In my opinion, these efforts don't solve problems or even add any useful dialogue toward solving a problem.
Real problem solving would be the Congress actually getting together and hammering out changes to immigration policy or law that would actually be useful to the situation. But in our climate of polarization purely for the sake of polarization, will that be done? Probably not.
reply report
1. 84
  tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  1986 was a long time ago wasn't it? It doesn't take a great detective to realize things are a changing and have been. Since then it is just point and blame then place a band-aid here and there and then that be changed with executive change usually ripped off.
  
  It seems congress for what ever reasons just can't get the job done and the fact remains Congress has abdicated their job task, duty, and responsibility to legislate immigration reform no matter what they come up with. They simply have failed!
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration 04/21/19

"As the heated debate over funding the southern border wall rages on in Congress, President Trump announced his intention to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states across the nation. Considering that a number of major locations, including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and others have declared that they would not cooperate with immigration enforcement, the proposal seems like a rather logical one.

After all, if these cities decide to nullify federal law, there should be no issue in settling more illegal immigrants within their boundaries. But as clever as the proposal is, it also unveils a damaging policy gap and highlights the staggering costs that illegal immigration poses for state, local, and federal budgets. In short, illegal immigration burdens citizens, both native and immigrant, with immeasurable social and fiscal costs.

{mosads}Setting aside the legal and moral questions that shape immigration policy, there is a significant tax burden imposed on citizens and legal immigrants tied to a leaky border. President Trump made headlines last year for questioning the costs of illegal immigration. Our dutiful firefighters in the mainstream press fact checked each word and called his $250 billion figure an exaggeration. However, looking at the substance of his argument shows that he was likely on the mark.

The costs of illegal immigration are comprehensive. Even after deducting the $19 billion in taxes paid by illegal immigrants, the 12.5 million of them living in the country results in a $116 billion burden on the economy and taxpayers each year. About two-thirds of this amount is absorbed by local and state taxpayers, who are often the least unable to share the costs.

One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.

A full half of noncitizens receive Medicaid, compared to 23 percent of native born citizens, while almost half of noncitizens are on food stamps. Of particular concern is that noncitizens who stay in the long term are more likely to use these programs than those who just arrived. Half of new noncitizens receive welfare, but the figure jumps to a stunning 70 percent among those who have been in the United States for more than 10 years.

The threat to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states becomes clearer when looking at the local costs of poor border policy. Apart from making Cher an immigration hawk, the proposal underlines states like California, which has the highest burden related to its large noncitizen population. Home to 2.2 million illegal immigrants as of 2016, a full 15 percent of students are undocumented or have parents who are.

The total costs of education due to immigration will nearly double in the state over the next 50 years. Californians are saddled with $23 billion in tax dollars for services relating to the illegal population, which makes up more than 10 percent of the state budget. Californians pay 11 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes already. The additional burden imposed by illegal immigrants is $600 in costs to each citizen annually.

The institutional burden of illegal immigration also includes a crime rate four times higher than that of citizens. Of all federal prisoners, 26 percent are noncitizens, two-thirds of whom are in the United States illegally. Considering it costs the federal government $32,000 annually for each prisoner, the approximately 25,000 noncitizens in our prison system amounts to nearly $1 billion in expenses annually, not to mention the expenses of state correctional facilities and immigration enforcement.

The overall figures for border enforcement have skyrocketed as well. The number of border patrol agents has increased by almost five times over the last 25 years, and nearly doubled in the last 15 years. Meanwhile, the costs of protecting the southern border with Mexico has increased by nearly tenfold in the same period of 25 years to almost $4 billion annually. This does not even factor in the 43 percent of illegal immigrants who fail to show up to their scheduled court hearings following their detentions.

This is a financial crisis, and one that we allowed to happen. For all of the debate over wall funding, Americans should keep in mind that recurring costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build such a wall. When you notice your paycheck deductions or see our unsustainable government debt, consider how we allowed ourselves to get to this point."

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration … migration/

So with the huge increase in the number of migrants we now must support --- how much are we paying now?
reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
First Texas bus drops off migrants blocks from US Capitol in Washington, DC
The buses are part of Gov. Greg Abbott's plan to counter the Biden administration's approach to illegal immigration.

A bus from Texas arrived in Washington, D.C. Wednesday morning, transporting dozens of illegal immigrants as part of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s new plan to counter federal immigration policies during an ongoing border crisis.

Abbott announced last week that he was directing the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) to transport migrants released from federal custody in Texas to the nation’s capital and other locations outside his state.

So pleased to see Governor Abbott kept his word. Words matter, as does problem-solving. He just protected the people of Texas from their taxes being used to pay for the huge influx of migrants that are pouring into Texas. Saving taxpayers money on the cost of migrants' education and health care.

"AG Paxton: Illegal Immigration Costs Texas Taxpayers Over $850 Million Each Year
Texans pay between $579 million and $717 million each year for public hospital districts to provide uncompensated care for illegal aliens.
Texans paid $152 million to house illegal criminal aliens for just one year.
Texans pay between $62 million and $90 million to include illegal aliens in the state Emergency Medicaid program.
Texans paid more than $1 million for The Family Violence Program to provide services to illegal aliens for one year.
Texans pay between $30 million and $38 million per year on perinatal coverage for illegal aliens through the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Texans pay between $31 million and $63 million to educate unaccompanied alien children each year. "

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/ne … -each-year

So, did you realize how expensive it is to have migrants settle in a given state? And that your taxes foot the bill?
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "So, did you realize how expensive it is to have migrants settle in a given state? And that your taxes foot the bill?"
  
  In a given state...or a given country. With some 20 million in our country it is a concern.
  
  Yes, I understand at least some of how expensive it is. Unfortunately others, ignoring most of the costs, will claim that illegal aliens provide more than they get, repeating it often enough that a gullible public believes it.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I much agree. Hopefully, you don't live in a Blue state. I assume this is where migrants will be sent from red states. Floridas Governor is gearing up with allocated funds to start what Val called "a taxi service: It appears the blue states will pay that taxi fare and more.
  reply report
85
Valeantposted 2 years ago
Sharlee assumes wrong as there will no checks on bus lines when these immigrant-support groups ship those legally granted asylum hearings right back to final destination cities to await their hearings, including those in red states. And I notice she called them illegal immigrants instead of legal asylum seekers. Another far-right person who misunderstands the current immigration laws and mislabels migrants.

'Meanwhile, in Washington, the first group of migrants to accept a state-sponsored ride from Texas was being greeted by immigration advocates, who helped them get bus tickets to their final destinations in Miami and other cities, where they are expected to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

While advocates condemned the stunt as dehumanizing, some noted that Abbott had unintentionally done some good in the process.

"Advocates have long called on state and local governments to support migrants who need assistance getting to their ultimate destination, so ironically, the bussing plan is halfway to a good idea,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit immigrant advocacy group, told Yahoo News.'

But you've got a red-state governor literally working to make the issue of supply chains, something majorly affecting the inflation rate in the world, worse. Just the latest example of the GOP leaders either voting against solutions or making the problem worse. Typical.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "And I notice she called them illegal immigrants instead of legal asylum seekers."
  
  LOL They entered the country illegal; they are illegal aliens, not immigrants. They may be wanting a cup of coffee, a steak or asylum but they still entered illegally and should not be here. They are certainly not "migrants":
  
  migrant noun
  
  mi·grant | \ ˈmī-grənt \
  Definition of migrant
  : one that migrates: such as
  a: a person who moves regularly in order to find work especially in harvesting crops
  
  They do not fit the definition no matter how good you think it sounds or how much you dislike the more accurate term of "illegal aliens".
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately for you, it is legal to present yourself in another country and ask for asylum. In fact, you actually must be in that country to do so.
  
  Like I noted previously, there are international treaties and US laws that both apply. In this case, these migrants were processed by Homeland Security, making them legal asylum seekers who have migrated to the United States looking for a safe place to exist. Calling them illegal is just a form of racism to deny that they are following the legal process for asylum, in order to denigrate them.
  reply report
  89
  IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  That's right.
  
  8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum
  
  Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed. Which is why many are taken home when interdicted in international (or American) waters. If they are brought ashore to be treated, fed, etc. then they may claim asylum. A law that was made with good intent but has been abused so badly that it desperately needs revisited.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  No, asking for asylum after entering illegally does not mean you entered legally. It just means that if you are caught, and scream out "I want asylum", as taught, then you may remain. A major hole in our laws as those three words are then used to remain in the country for years when that was never the intent.
  
  Am I wrong in understanding that international rules for asylum deny asylum from a country without persecution? That illegals entering from Mexico are not being persecuted there and therefore not due asylum, under international agreement? Pretty sure I read something along those lines months ago.
  
  Do you even know what the term "racism" means? Because it has zero to do with the legality of sneaking across the border and violating our laws. Yes, it has become a great liberal card to play, but it is absolutely meaningless when cried out over things that have nothing to do with race.
  
  Still calling them migrants, when they plainly are not. And no, you don't get to change the meaning of the word to make your arguments sound better. At absolute best they are "aliens", but never migrants.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Can you accept that we are both right? I'm not discounting illegal entry laws, I'm simply stating that those laws are in direct conflict with the legal way to claim asylum. Once these people have been accepted into the asylum system, they are not illegal, which both you and Sharlee seem to continue to assert.
  
  When you refer to a large swath of mostly Hispanic migrants as illegals, and yes the term migrants does define them accurately, when they have been granted the right to an asylum review, there are racial overtones to making minorities out to be something less than what they are. You can deny it all you want, but that's a very clear case of racism.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  The sky will surely fall today. Within the hour, no doubt, for I agree; we are both right. I find that our laws are being make a mockery of, in millions of attempts to do an end run around them, but that does not make those "end runs" illegal. Wrong, but not illegal.
  
  No, because a group of people violating the law are mostly of one race (although that is changing) does not make it racist to enforce the law. This is a common fallacy, and nothing more than an attempt to make enforcement sound bad when it is not. An emotional argument without basis.
  
  Did you read the definition of "migrant"? Continually moving to find work? Those people are not doing that; ergo they are not migrants. They made one move (to the US) and that's all. To pretend they are migrants makes migrants of all those in the US that have moved to take a new job, which they obviously are not. They may have immigrated from one state to another, but that does not make them migrants; although the words are similar the meanings are not.
  
  But it is merely terminology, using words to make an impression that is false to fact. I am just so tired of such tactics; using language to give a reader a false impression. To make an argument sound reasonable when it is not. "undocumented immigrant", for instance, rather than "illegal alien. Yes, they are without documentation, but they are NOT immigrants, not until they are either citizens or have received at least semi-permanent permission to reside in the country. On the other hand they ARE here illegally and they ARE aliens. It is just sounds so much better to use wording that minimizes their status of being illegal to insinuate that they have immigrated, they just don't have documentation to prove it. It glosses over and ignores that primary problem that they are NOT legal and have NOT "immigrated", not according to the laws of our country.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Migrant: a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions.
  
  From one place to another. Does not say places or continually. That is your own addition to negate that it can happen one time. Something you do often, adding words that do not exist to change the literal definition of something as it was meant, just to fit your own warped narrative.
  
  On the other hand, I must give ground. I will agree that immigrant is not the right term though as that would signify permanence, so alien is correct.
  
  But illegal is not proper as I explained above to Sharlee. Making a legal asylum claim does not make one in the country illegally. Just call them asylum seekers, even asylum aliens would be more accurate.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't finish the quote I posted from Mirriam Webster (why not?).
  
  "Definition of migrant
  : one that migrates: such as
  a: a person who moves regularly in order to find work especially in harvesting crops
  
  So yes, it does say continually, or at least with some regularity. Something they do often. Unlike your (warped) definition that ignores the critical aspect of being a migrant.
  
  Like you, I give ground; although they entered illegally they are now here legally. I can't call them "asylum seekers" because only a tiny portion even might qualify for asylum and many of them know that. The request for asylum is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent deportation and disappear into the country. Asylum is not give because they are poor or because they live in squalor, because there are no jobs for them or because they can't afford the medical care they can get here for free. Yet those, and other similar, reasons are the large majority of reasons that people sneak in across our border.
  
  But yes, for that small portion that really might receive asylum then "asylum seekers" is appropriate. How do we tell the difference without waiting for years on their court case (assuming they show up - most will not)?
  reply report
  89
  IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  A note about your "migrant" point. You're not using the definition of immigrant, which is the one used.
  
  im·mi·grant
  /ˈiməɡrənt/
  
  noun
  a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
  
  And this is from DHS:
  
  Permanent residents are also commonly referred to as immigrants; however, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States...
  An illegal alien who entered the United States without inspection, for example, would be strictly defined as an immigrant under the INA but is not a permanent resident alien.
  
  So, yes, they are immigrants.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but immigration to the United States requires that certain things be accomplished. For those wishing citizenship a test must be approved and passed. For those wishing to remain permanently (or for long periods) they must receive approval as well.
  
  Illegal aliens have not done either, and precious few even try. They are therefore immigrants as they have not immigrated and have no intention of doing so. They may not simply enter with the intent to stay and call themselves immigrants.
  reply report
  89
  IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  What? You're so confused.
  
  In any case, I suppose you know better than the US government.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  You don't think there are specific steps to be taken to immigrate to the US? I assure you there are.
  
  While it is popular (at least by the left) to use terminology like "undocumented immigrant" rather than truthful labels, immigration requires specific steps.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Because I do not take an example, the 'such as', as the literal definition. One who migrates is the definition, which if we're being honest, isn't really saying much and why Merriam-Webster isn't the most recognized dictionary out there.
  
  Now go look at how the most recognized dictionary in the English language (Oxford) defines it.
  
  Migrant: a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions
  
  My warped definition happens to come from the most regarded source.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  As I commented earlier, that would make most Americans a "migrant" as most of us have moved at one time or another in order to find work.
  
  I don't know about you, but I am not a migrant. I moved across the country 46 years ago for work, and then back 24 years ago. Neither move makes me a "migrant".
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  So you cannot be a migrant to a new state? You can't migrate there? Geez.
  reply report
61
Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago
I think Governor Abbott should focus on solutions instead of stunts. Again, bluster over substance. But in any case, To board a bus or flight, a migrant must volunteer to be transported and show documentation from DHS. These aren't "illegals"
reply report
1. 81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "The Biden administration in May is lifting a public health order used to expel migrants arriving at the border amid the pandemic.
  Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced that troopers will meet immigrants at the border and then bus them to Washington, D.C.
  A federal statute criminalizes the transportation of immigrants in the U.S. illegally, but legal experts said Abbott’s plans don’t appear to violate that law as long as the immigrants travel voluntarily. It’s important to note that Abbott can’t force them to go to Washington."
  
  "A press release from Abbott’s office took a softer stance and said immigrants will only go if they volunteer and after they have been processed by the Department of Homeland Security."
  https://www.politifact.com/article/2022 … migrants-/
  
  I am not sure it is a "stunt", it will be interesting to see if he keeps up these transports. I would think it a stunt if he gives up on it in a short time.
  
  At any rate, his offer to transport migrants appears legal.
  
  Any migrants that walk into the US at a destination other than our legal border crossing entered illegally.
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 2 years ago
If anyone walks into the country at any other point than a border crossing they have broken the law.

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any non-citizen who: enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/cri … 20penalty.

It's called following the Laws we have in America.
reply report
1. 85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  It's also called not excluding other applicable laws such as the one Island Bites cited above that describes the action of crossing the border to claim asylum to be a legal act.
  
  Crossing the border and not claiming asylum would be illegal. But the people you cited in your article did claim asylum as they were processed by Homeland Security. So by you excluding the asylum laws, which these are cases of, you are making your latest false assertion.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think anyone is not aware that once a person is on US grounds that they can ask for asylum. We were discussing the term, illegal migrant. Many politicians, media, and yes social media warriors use the term illegal immigrants. I feel this label is due to the fact the person walking in initially broke the law by entering the US, not at our official border crossings but just walking in. Technically they broke the law. They did not present at a border crossing, which is what is recommended as how one should present to request asylum.
  
  It is clear that if a person crosses illegally, they can when approached by a border agent claim asylum. However, technically they broke the law crossing the border. This may be the reason that so many use the term "illegal migrant". I don't think anyone here disputed that once a person has entered the US even if they crossed illegally, they are not able to ask for asylum. They clearly can, and have been doing so for many years.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I just don't understand how hard it can be to differentiate the illegal aliens, those who illegally crossed and did not become part of the asylum system, from asylum seekers.
  
  Calling legal asylum seekers illegal is, as I said, a means of making foreigners less than what they are. It's not accurate and opens yourself up to the criticism that accompanies falsely labelling those of different cultures.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I blame this problem on a loophole. I feel no one should be able to walk in other than at a border crossing to request asylum. We need to come up with better ways to handle people that are asylum seekers. I think many Americans realize we need help from migrants in the job force.
  
  I don't think it's a racial labeling problem. It's a terminology problem. Some view when someone walks across anywhere but a border entry, they came in breaking a law initially. Hence the label, illegal migrant.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe not, but it does open one up to such a criticism based on a misapplication between illegal entry and legal asylum law. An asylum law that I can agree is being abused and needs to be legislatively corrected.
  reply report
  81
  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  As I said it's all in terminology. It is clear that people that do walk in at inappropriate areas (not a border crossing) are able to ask for asylum, are held, and taken to CBP detention facilities or Processing Center, and processed and if all goes well, they are released into the US to await their hearing. This now is being done not only by judges but due to a new immigration policy Asylum Officers are also now able to hear cases and offer asylum.
  
  In my view, an illegal migrant is a person that just walks in and disappears into the US without presenting themselves for asylum.
  reply report
  85
  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  And the truth shall set you free. Now maybe when we talk about those illegally here and those legally being considered for asylum, we can all be more specific with the terminology. Including myself and the use of alien and not immigrant.
  reply report
85
Valeantposted 2 years ago
I wonder if there has been any lawmaker who has proposed keeping Title 42 in place for any alien who has not been vaccinated?
reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 24 months ago

"EXCLUSIVE: Florida's lawsuit against the Biden administration over its so-called "catch-and-release" policy advanced Wednesday, with a federal judge saying that Biden's policies have turned the southern border into "little more than a speedbump" for illegal immigrants.

In September 2021, the state of Florida sued the Biden administration over its "illegal" catch-and-release policies saying they cause harm to the state's "quasi-sovereign interests," while claiming officials are either in violation of federal immigration law, or simply abusing their authority. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody filed the suit against the administration as part of a joint effort with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to "uphold the rule of law despite the Biden administration's decision to violate the law."

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled Wednesday that the lawsuit can move forward, throwing out the Biden administration's motion to dismiss the case, with Judge T. Kent Wetherell issuing a scathing opinion saying the court was "wholly unpersuaded" by the administration's position."

"Today’s order is a huge win in our fight to force the Biden administration to fix the crisis by following the law. As the order states, ‘not even the President is above the law,’ and I look forward to advancing our case to hold the Biden administration accountable for ignoring public-safety immigration laws and turning our nation’s last bastion of protection into nothing more than a speedbump," Moody said in an exclusive statement to Fox News Digital.

Wetherell's order states that the Biden administration has "adopted and are implementing policies that contravene explicit mandates and restrictions in the immigration statutes and that the policies have effectively turned the southern border into little more than a speedbump for the hundreds of thousands of aliens who have flooded across the border into the country since January 2021 and the thousands more who are arriving at the border daily."

Wetherell wrote that the court was unconvinced that the Biden administration has "unfettered discretion to determine how (or if) to comply with the immigration statutes and that there is nothing that Florida or this Court can do about their policies even if they contravene the immigration statutes."

He called the Biden administration's policy "as remarkable as it is wrong" because no one is above the law, including the president.

When Biden first took office in 2021, he signed several immigration-related executive orders, which included revoking then-President Trump’s order ending the catch and release policy, by which migrants were released into the interior after being apprehended.

"This is about how America is safer, stronger, more prosperous when we have a fair, orderly, and humane legal immigration system," Biden said at the time.

Under the former Trump administration, the catch-and-release policy was limited due to the enforcement of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) in 2019, also known as the Remain in Mexico program.

The Biden administration officially ended MPP in June and was sued by a several GOP-led states, which took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. The high court is set to rule on it in the coming months.

The administration is also facing backlash from both Democrats and Republicans for ending Title 42, a public health order set to expire on May 23 that has been used since March 2020 to quickly expel a majority of migrants at the border due to the COVID-19 pandemic"

Thoughts -----. Do you feel Biden has handled the growing migration problems? If so what have I missed?
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this
  Biden has "handled" the problems at our border by ignoring them. This has produced the desired effect of a massive invasion there, so his "handling" was effective. In his opinion.
  reply report
  76
  Ken Burgessposted 23 months agoin reply to this
  Biden doesn't ignore them.
  He is following guidelines set forth in the Global Compact for Migration.
  As well as other UN directives regarding Migrants.
  During the Debates he promised to do so.
  When are people going to wake up in America.
  Democrats = Globalization, One World Government, efforts.
  Most politicians do, regardless of Party.
  However if there are those who resist these efforts, they reside in the Republican Party, Trump was anti-Globalist, pro-American.
  reply report
81
Sharlee01posted 23 months ago
Another record-breaking number of migrants crossed the southern border in April. U.S. border officials encountered 234,088 migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border in April, topping March’s 22-year high of just over 221,000, according to a court document filed Monday, May 16, 2022.

April marks the fourth time in the Biden administration that monthly border encounters have topped 200,000. Each undocumented migrant who either reports to the authorities at legal ports of entry or tries to cross illegally and is caught is tallied as an encounter.

Numbers for May are so far consistent with those in April. According to internal Customs and Border Protection data obtained by NBC News, last week CBP encountered an average of just over 7,400 migrants a day. If the trend continues for 30 days, CBP would have a monthly encounter rate of just under 230,000

When will the Biden administration start finding some solutions to the problem of millions at this point pouring across our border?

Did Title 42 help? The chart below shows it did.

What Actually Happened To People Encountered After Crossing the Border?

Over its first year in office, the Biden administration continued the previous administration’s practice of rapidly expelling or deporting most people encountered at the border. From February through December, 56% of all people encountered by the Border Patrol were expelled under Title 42 (see Figure 5). While unaccompanied children and some families at the border have been allowed to come into the country and challenge their deportation in immigration court, they represent just 44% of total apprehensions over that period.

So why is Biden doing away with Title 42?
It's clear many states are having an increase in COVID cases, some have returned to mitigations. So, why is Biden so hell-bent on removing this helpful tool?

Source of charts, and information American Immigration Council
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil. … rs-in-2021
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Biden's Border Crisis - Is It About To Get Worse?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Biden's Border Crisis - Is It About To Get Worse?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies