Migrants Coming To A City Near You - If You Offer Sanctuary
A Texas mayor is sounding the alarm amid a dramatic spike in migrants crossing the U.S. border, saying his city has reached a "breaking point."
"The city of El Paso only has so many resources and we have come to... a breaking point right now," El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser, a Democrat, said at a news conference Saturday.
Leeser's comments come as El Paso has faced over 2,000 migrants per day crossing the border and seeking asylum in the city, putting a strain on resources and overflowing the available shelter space.
"So, this is something that we've been prepared for, but these numbers have really escalated a lot quicker than we ever anticipated," he added.
The city is just one of several border cities in Texas and California facing a surge in mostly Venezuelan asylum seekers, according to a Reuters report, with many taking dangerous routes on buses and cargo trains to reach the U.S. border.
Leeser said the city plans to open a new shelter, though on Saturday El Paso chartered five buses to move migrants to cities such as New York, Chicago and Denver. The mayor said the migrants were being moved to the city of their choice, with many lacking transportation to get to their preferred destinations while El Paso's shelter capacity currently can only host 400 people and also has to serve the city's homeless population.
Makes me wonder how much Federal money has been poured into Biden's pet project to cram the US with migrants. I don't want my tax dollars used for this kind of uncalled-for problem. Do want your tax dollars spent on Joe's "Cram The Us To The Brink with Illegal Migrants?
Yes or no will suffice
Once a migrant is admitted to the US and told to report to ICE in 60 days, do you feel migrants should be able to choose their destination ?
Again yes or no would be great.
Do you live in or near a Sanctuary city?Sad!!
Here at San Diego metro and the county since about Sept 14 there have been about 7,000 migrants processed and bussed I believe somewhere. So, we, too, face our share of the problem! They are dropped off at transit locations or near humanitarian centers. From CBS8 comes;
“Border patrol is releasing individuals who have their court documents and are ready to go onward to their final destination," said Paulina Reyes-Perrariz of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center. She is chair of the San Diego Immigrants Rights Consortium and she is also a member of the California Welcoming Task Force.
"However, we do have limited ability to house them and shelter them. I think right now what we're doing is assisting individuals and guiding them, to make sure they reach their final destinations," she added. "Most of the individuals here need to get to the airport. Most are not remaining in San Diego, they are moving onward.”
Since about the 14th of Sept., about 7,000 have been dropped off here and there. It is a challenge that definitely is not wanted!!
Broadcast from our Local KUSI from 6 days ago. (6:26 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2Am92YefTk
Oh heck, if interested this link goes Google’s landing site for YouTubes for our area.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … nt+problem
Recent articles:
More migrants dropped off at San Diego transit centers while shelters remain overwhelmed by CBS8 (09/18/23)
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/local … 40608156a5
‘Our border is in chaos': Supervisor Desmond speaks out against Oceanside migrant drop-offs by Channel 7 (9/24/23)
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/ … s/3312892/Appears Mayorkis contradicts Paulina Reyes-Perrariz, in regard to migrants being released without court papers. I believe they have been doing this for a long time. It has been recently reported this now is the procedure due to the number that needs processing.
Question: Thank you, Karine. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. On a memo that the U.S Border Patrol Chief sent to sector chiefs last night allowing for parole releases if overcrowding becomes an issue – that's not Title 8, like you said would happen. I mean, these migrants don't get an alien registration number that would be used to track them. They don't get a court date. They're instead asked to self-report to ICE within 60 days. You said at the beginning that you've prepared for this moment for almost two years. So why is part of that plan an honor system?
Secretary Mayorkas: Oh, it is – it is not an honor system. What we what we do is we use the resources that we have to meet the challenges that we confront. This is a tool that has been used in the past. The vast majority of individuals will indeed be placed in expedited removal, and if they do not qualify, will be removed in a matter of days, if not weeks, from the United States. When we – when we encounter a volume of individuals, for which we need to address in a different way, we do so. If those individuals do not honor their commitment to surrender to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officer to be able to be placed in enforcement proceedings, they are a subject of our apprehension efforts.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/05/11/sec … -42-public[Throws hands in the air]
Atrocious!
I don’t know what to think after peeking at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection report for YTD Fiscal year 2023. (Thru Aug) Overall compared to 2022 it shares there is an 8.6% decline in encounters.
However, different sectors have gone up and down. For instance, for my neck of the woods San Diego went up +27.4% while El Centro in Imperial County next door went down -24.3%. Yes, the numbers themselves were vastly different.
That occurs also with TX and AZ. El Paso had the highest change at +50.4%, although Big Bend went down -63.3%. Again, though, the % indicates one thing, the numbers themselves paint a different picture. The provided table is interactive allowing a person to investigate by month. Maybe what is needed is by week?
2022 – 1,998,839
2023 – 1,827,133
For 2023 type breakdown is:
All – 1,827,133
Title 8 – 1,277,321
Title 42 – 549,812
Southwest Land Border Encounters (By Component)
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sout … -component
I am unsure of the different metrics used for border control/security measurements at this time. I will look into it at a later time.
Yet, all I know is it is a crisis here at the San Diego border. We see it in the news daily for weeks now. It is impacting the communities. The link next is what the County Supervisors are up to now as a result of the crisis; Sept. 26, 2023. If they are taking steps on the crisis, then it is a crisis, right?
SUBJECT:..Title
DECLARING THE LACK OF RESOURCES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS (DISTRICTS: ALL)
https://www.kusi.com/content/uploads/20 … FINAL3.pdf
Note: Just checked . . . SD Supervisors vote unanimously, declare humanitarian crisis at the border (YouTube of meeting - about 3 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNON5x5Lm8s
I think you will find this interesting Tim.
The video below is of a small town meeting, regarding the residents confronting the Town Board about the arrival of migrants.
Massachusetts Town Officials Respond to Migrant Housing Protests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktXDZGv3asQ
"Town officials clarified that they had no role in bringing the migrants to Yarmouth, and that they were equally surprised by the situation."
This is what is going on, the migrants are being shipped all over the country without notifying the local towns that they are arriving, no care at all what the people of that town want, or if they can truly handle their arrival in a positive way.
And, as I explained (and linked to a variety of sources) in another thread regarding migration/border issues, this is fully funded and supported by the Biden Administration. How much so, few Americans realize, because they don't take the time to read White House announcements on the matter, or look into UN efforts, or Non-Profits funded to aid migrants in reaching America and then supporting their entry when they get here.Thanks, Ken! Watched it. It is cool to see there is an opportunity for community involvement and it was acted upon. Overall for what is occurring nationwide, I don't know whether to use crisis or disaster as a descriptive word of choice. However, it simply remains to be a distinct problem! It is going to cost our nation, our states, our communities, our charity foundations, and for some, themselves as citizens.
I agree.
Its not that I am not sympathetic, but I also realize we do not have the capacity, as a nation, to take in hundreds of millions and survive as a cohesive nation.
Perhaps that is one of the underlying reasons for such top down support for these efforts... and one has to understand this is fully supported and funded by UN and Federal efforts.
We have to start by reading the Global Compact on Migration, and related UN agreements related to migration, and recognize this is something that is going to continue to GROW in numbers and that it is being facilitated by our own government.
My problem is that our government doesn't answer to Americans, doesn't ask them, doesn't inform them openly and honestly about what it going on, and the MSM worsens the matter, talking about the "Migration Crisis" and stirring up angst and anger over the matter.
My personal opinion, based on how this has been handled, and how the Biden Administration does so many other things poorly, is that this is something that could be handled much better... both through the MSM and through communication from the EO, they are simply that bad at doing the job, incompetent in this, as they are so many other things... and as with the transgender, child sex change, Ukraine war issues, they don't really give a damn what Americans think about the matter.Thanks! I have not read in full all of the reading recommendations you've provided skimming some stopping here and there where my interest is piqued. Yet, enough to get the thrust of what you share.
The border and migration have been an issue with me for a long time now, though is a salt & pepper kind of thing through my personal life journey living in San Diego County. I am not enthralled with how it is presently being handled, however applaud the Border Patrol and the overwhelmed humanitarian organizations.I came across another good watch, under 5 minutes, the testimony of Rep. Morgan Luttrell to the House Homeland Security Committee this Wednesday, he spoke about how migrants are impacting his community.
When he started saying things like 100,000 immigrants were put in his county and having to build five new schools for them, I was surprised... its funny, when we hear that 2 million people crossed the border in the last ten months, its just a number, testimony like this gives it some perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XChFowA_00k
'My personal opinion, based on how this has been handled, and how the Biden Administration does so many other things poorly, is that this is something that could be handled much better.."
Ken, let us hope they continue down this path so more Americans will realize we are on the wrong path, and we will see change in 2024. Inn my view, a bit more pain will bring us change.
New Jersey Democrats are reportedly viewing the Biden administration’s migrant housing proposal as an election issue possibly impacting their own 2024 prospects in the deep blue state.
As New York City grapples with the arrival of more than 116,000 asylum seekers, South Jersey leaders from both political parties came together earlier this month at a press conference held in opposition to the Biden administration floating Atlantic City International Airport as one of 11 potential sites to house migrants who’ve arrived in New York City from the southern border.No, I don't want my tax dollars used for stuffing the United States of America to the brim with illegal immigrants.
There is NO justification for President Biden's and Merrick Garland's evil stubbornness to continue do so.
Whoever comes in illegally commits a felony. The Biden administration is aiding and abetting felons, paroles, drugs dealers, traffickers/smugglers of humans including women and children. Terrorists have also been discovered.
There are reports of pregnant women flocking in to have their babies here. Men are bringing children in, pretending to be their fathers. Who knows who they are to the children. One five year old, who was being accompanied by a man, did not know who she was or where she came from. She was disheveled and traumatized. Luckily this man was separated from the child by security agents and the matter is being looked into. How many stories of this type of misery and pain are out there? The Sound of Freedom was a movie I chose not to see, because I knew seeing it would make me suffer and change me forever.
They are making it seem like this place is a wonderful Utopia for all. It's not. And it is becoming worse than it ever was. We have citizens who need employment. OUR Citizens have lost their jobs due to the Covid 19 pandemic, due to layoffs, due to closing of small businesses and can no longer afford the ever-raising rents. Our struggling citizens are owed government assistance over strangers who are beguiled into the country by Democrat politicians for nefarious reasons.
We have citizens who are painfully homeless due to the fact that they have lost their minds and bodies due to drug addiction. 100,000 people a year die from narcotics and fentanyl, the very drug manufactured in China, marketed in Mexico and then brought over the border by ruthless drug cartels.
Our society is already falling apart due to many factors. To facilitate this invasion is to put the last nails in the coffin that is becoming America. The most recent is the high prices of everything from gas to groceries to building materials. These high prices are due to the fact that we have LOST our energy independence.
WHY is the Gas almost $6.50 a gallon in CA? Is it to pay for the illegal aliens who are brought in and dropped off?
Many are given rooms, payed for by the government, (us,) in expensive hotels ... and in the morning they devour every crumb of the complimentary continental breakfasts, leaving none for the paying guests. After three or four days in one motel/hotel, they are bused to another, and on it goes. This was witnessed by my friend who was on a business trip in San Diego.
To say it not fair to continue breaking the law at the southern border is an understatement. We really need to support the passing of H.R. 2, the Secure the Border act of 2023. It passed in the House of Representatives and is the most comprehensive border security legislation we have had for decades.Thanks for pointing out H.R. 2! I took a peek and saw it is a common sense approach. Pretty much is saying Go back to the basics.
I found a summary by Kevin McCarthy at the link next.
https://www.speaker.gov/wp-content/uplo … -Pager.pdf
"The legislation will:
** Force the Biden Administration to restart construction of the border wall
** Deploy technology to the southern and northern border
** Increase the number of Border Patrol agents and provide bonus pay
** Require transparency regarding illegal crossings from the Department of Homeland Security
** Strengthen current law to protect unaccompanied children from human trafficking
** End catch and release
** End abuse of executive immigration authority
** Strengthen and streamline the asylum process
There is a link to the complete text of the bill there.
In contrast, the White House says, No-No-No
"While we welcome Congress’ engagement on meaningful steps to address immigration and the challenges at the border, this bill would make things worse, not better. Because this bill does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the Nation’s core values and international obligations, it should be rejected. If the President were presented with H.R. 2, he would veto it."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/u … H.R.-2.pdf
Huh!
Thank you to all that have extended gracious welcomes. I would like to give my input from the front line. At the time that Abbott’s and others busing program began in April 2022, I began working at the National Immigrant Justice Center, an immigration legal services nonprofit based in Chicago. We watched as other cities began to be overwhelmed by migrants, but when the first buses arrived in Chicago five months later, we were only somewhat ready. NIJC joined in with the city’s initial response, giving rapid-fire “Know-Your-Rights” presentations to people who had arrived on a late-night coach bus, without advance notice, less than 12 hours before.
People were the way you might expect them to be the morning after a long bus ride: Kids swinging between cranky and hyperactive; parents and adults exhausted and trying to take in as much as they could with the firehose of information and resources the city was providing. On September 1, 2022, and for the next week, I explained over and over again what various United States Citizenship and Immigration Services forms meant, answered slight variations on the same worried questions time and time again, directed people to one of a dozen other volunteer stations in the room where they could get medicine, screened for public health diseases, a transit card or just a pair of donated pants more fitting for the colder Chicago weather. Many people were wondering how soon they could get work permits, they were eager to get their asylum process started, and also knew that the sooner they could get jobs without jeopardizing their immigration status, the sooner they could truly begin their lives in Chicago. Being in that room that day was incredible, the city and volunteer organizations had created this infrastructure out of nothing, designed to give these people a soft landing in a place they hadn’t really thought about before arriving. While some people were meeting friends or family waiting for them in Chicago and elsewhere in the Midwest, many others had come because it seemed like a better alternative than the crowded border shelters. Because they sensed that Texas would not welcome them.
The people I met that September were simply seeking a place to land. They were families, individuals just like you or me. No they were not criminals or rapists. They were unsure of what their time in the U.S. would bring, still hoping for a good outcome for themselves and their families. Many of them chose to stay in Chicago because of the reception the city came out to welcome them. But yes the continual busloads of people have stretched the city’s shelter system to capacity, leaving people sleeping in police stations and ad-hoc shelters.
Part of the issue with the response is that Chicago has been forced to make it work almost solely on state and city funding, with only a small amount chipped in by the federal government. Another is that the people arriving in their cities do so with little to no notice or communication from the states sending them.
Currently, the federal government has allocated only $800 million to support local governments across the country in caring for recently arrived migrants. Comparing that to the $2.8 billion in federal funding that ICE currently uses to incarcerate tens of thousands of immigrants, we see why both border states and receiving cities are feeling unsupported. What if, instead of paying for thousands of unused detention beds or incarcerating people to fill quotas, we instead put that funding towards city and state governments along with the countless nonprofits that provide a variety of services, would ensure a growth in care infrastructure, not just for new arrivals, but for existing residents of these cities. Also, ensuring rapid access to work permits would ensure that newly arrived migrants are able to immediately start participating in their new homes.
Republican governors’ transportation tactics are designed to make us see newly arriving migrants as a logistical problem, a question of numbers that don’t add up. In reality, migrants are people, and welcoming them like people is the best way to ensure a good outcome for everyone. Chicago’s attempt to do this was eventually hindered by a lack of wider federal support for the ambitious project they were undertaking, but a future exists in which federal resources and money go not towards incarcerating migrants, but into helping them integrate into our community. Thank you.I am empathetic, yet a realist too. Enjoyed reading your account of things with interest. Thanks!
Yet, did you see the post by Ken sharing a video about a town hall meeting for Yarmouth, which has a population of 25,000, on the impact on a small community and its citizens? It is a very recent video. Frankly, in my view, they were imposed upon with no real warning, and are overwhelmed!! The point is it occurred overnight without any input from Yarmouth whatsoever! In other words, in essence, it was forced upon them.
Is that fair in your mind?
For convenience, next is the link to the video shared by Ken regarding the Yarmouth town hall. I would be interested in your input.
Massachusetts Town Officials Respond to Migrant Housing Protests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktXDZGv3asQGreetings,
I watched the video and found it extremely relatable. Over the past few years I've encountered situations such as those captured. Fear is common among residents but in my experience isn't always justified. We've had very little disruption in our local shelters. A gentleman that spoke in the video was on the right path when he suggested the community talk with their new migrant members. When the lines of communication are opened many fears are dampened. Although I do see that many people would rather hold on to those fears and prejudicial stereotypes so they avoid contact. I cringed at the grandmother's commentary. She was just lacking góod information. Public health disease screenings are routine.
Your question of fairness has many dimensions.
Governments around the world are grappling with an increase in the number of people forcibly displaced from their homes by climate, political and social oppression. My family left Guatemala in the '80s due to civil war, indigenous genocide and an unstable government which the US had its hand in creating, not just in Guatemala but the entire region.
Despite campaign commitments to restore humanity to immigration policy, the Biden administration has largely continued Trump-era policies at the U.S.-Mexico border.
These policies blatantly undermine domestic and international asylum law.
There are other ways to address the situation at the border, leading with empathy and courage in compliance with the Refugee Act of 1980. The administration can and should: 1) develop and support robust communication and planning between federal, state and local governments, and civil society, so that those arriving migrants in need of additional support can be matched with a destination with capacity to provide services. This didn't happen in the video of Cape Cod and there is no excuse for it. Many migrants have a destination in mind, they have relatives to connect with while others simply need temporary emergency shelter. These needs should be sorted out before people are randomly bussed around the country for dramatic effect. This practice is not fair to any involved.
2) Fully fund and support civil society, including social and legal service providers; we and they are the ones on the ground providing services. 3) Create non-custodial, humanitarian reception centers at the border, instead of jailing migrants and asylum seekers; A completely new approach to border processing infrastructure is needed. 4) Overhaul the federal immigration budget by moving funds away from detention and enforcement and toward asylum processing and humanitarian needs. Currently, the federal government has allocated only $800 million to support local governments across the country in caring for recently arrived migrants. Comparing that to the $2.8 billion in federal funding that ICE currently uses to incarcerate tens of thousands of immigrants. What if, instead of paying for thousands of unused detention beds or incarcerating people to fill quotas, we instead put that funding towards city and state governments along with the countless nonprofits that provide a variety of services.
While taking these steps the administration must 5) abide by its obligation to ensure asylum access to those arriving at the United States’ borders and ports. The Refugee Convention, which Congress incorporated into U.S. law, was borne out of the horrors of World War II and the Nazi Genocide. It reminds us of a history we must not repeat, when the United States was among those countries that turned European Jewish refugees away, back to their deaths. Policies used during the Trump administration, including the Title 42 mass expulsions policy and asylum bans that deny protection on the basis of a person’s manner of entry, stand in blatant violation of this obligation. As is Biden's asylum ban.
The right to access asylum upon arrival at a U.S. border is foundational to international and domestic refugee law. Section 1158 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code states that, “Any [person] who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival…), irrespective of such [person]’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section…”
This law is the result of bipartisan U.S. lawmaking that codified the right to non-discriminatory access to asylum at U.S. borders through the 1980 Refugee Act, bringing the United States into compliance with the international Refugee Convention, to which it is party (through its 1967 Protocol).
The bussing stunts haven't had the intended effect that the anti-immigration groups had intended but they are highlighting the desperate need for immigration reform for a new age.
The Biden administration must prioritize humane border solutions that are rooted in fairness, compassion and respect for international refugee protections.We have a terrible dilemma facing us as a nation.
Biden and Harris have proven woefully incompetent for the world stage, especially at this time of turmoil in world history.
The inability of this Administration to handle the issues facing the country today is apparent to all that can judge objectively, those not beholden to a political party, right or wrong.
The alternative choice America will be presented will be Trump, regardless of what they do to him through the court system, there will be no alternative that will garner any serious support.
Trump does hold some positives, escalating dangers we are pursuing in Ukraine would be over. The threat of WWIII finished, Ukraine would be forced to the negotiating table rather than America to war with Russia.
Also, he would probably mend relationships with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others that Biden has alienated, which in turn might help with energy costs and inflation.
I am pretty sure his way of addressing immigration matters would be less than ideal, for anyone trying to immigrate.
I am mixed on this, I think we need an enforceable border, complete with electronic surveillance, plenty of border agents, and walls where prudent.
We need to have a vetting process that begins outside the border, rather than after they have crossed the border, economic hardships do not equate to needing immediate asylum.
Otherwise, the 4 million immigrants that have come the last couple of years will become 4 million a year, then 6 million a year, until the ability to provide any care at all is non-existent as the system/society becomes overwhelmed.
There is evidence that system failure has already begun, what was mere years ago prime real estate for the well-off and top businesses, today looks like 3rd world regions that these migrants are fleeing from, San Fransisco being the most obvious example of this.
We as a country act as if we are supremely powerful and have endless supplies of money, truth is, we are teetering on severe economic, civil, and military crisis. Much of that has to do with the great many failures of the Biden Administration and its poor decisions.Greetings Ken, I am a humanitarian with the following thought. The Biden Administration needs to stop defending its asylum ban, which a federal court found violates U.S. law, and protect the rights of people in danger to seek safety in the United States. This policy runs counter to domestic and international laws which establish the right to seek asylum. He is circumventing US immigration law. I don't think enough people fully understand that. Yes, seeking asylum is legal. You should not be penalized for your manner of entry. U.S. laws protect the rights of people fleeing persecution to come to this country and pursue asylum, full stop. The Biden administration must now direct its resources to upholding that right, rather than fighting to continue this unlawful and inhumane asylum ban.
Biden has had over two years to set up a fair and humane asylum process post-Title 42. The administration has instead chosen to resurrect and repackage illegal Trump-era policies is reprehensible to those of us that would like to see our immigration laws upheld.
The United States is obligated under international law to respect the principle of nonrefoulement, the obligation not to return a person to a country where they are at risk of persecution, torture, or other irreparable harm.
Asylum seekers who turn themselves in at or between ports of entry without accessing one of the very limited appointments on CBP One may be held in inhumane conditions in Border Patrol custody, where they will be processed for expedited removal, which does not afford asylum seekers adequate due process protections. Federal asylum officers who will be obligated to rapidly adjudicate claims under the rule have spoken out against the policy, saying it is inconsistent with the asylum law enacted by Congress and the treaties the United States has ratified. The court’s decision leaves no room for doubt that the asylum ban is unlawful and cannot stand. Those who aren't an agreement with our immigration laws should press their representatives to come to the bipartisan table and craft new measures for the future."He is circumventing US immigration law."
Name the statute.Hello Mike,
Our immigration law 8 USC 1158 allow an individual to claim a “credible fear” of persecution if they were sent back to their country of origin, regardless of their immigration status or how they entered the U.S. While they go through this long-standing legal process, they are protected against removal and are allowed to work. If they win their case, they can resettle permanently in the U.S. and eventually become a citizen.
The new policy, however, imposes a “rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for asylum”, an unlawful departure from decades of U.S. asylum policy since World War II. This means that people seeking asylum are presumed to be ineligible for relief from the start of their process of applying, and have to provide evidence to overcome that presumption, which is possible only in extremely narrow circumstances. This presumption applies to any individuals who traveled through another country before reaching the U.S. unless they followed complicated procedures or met certain exceptions. Most individuals who are apprehended in the U.S. and subsequently denied the opportunity to apply for asylum under the new policy are rapidly deported under expedited removal, with no court hearing, and subjected to consequences, including bars on re-entering the U.S. in the future, even through other legal channels. People don't understand what is actually going on, on the actual ground. It is being obscured through news media and political bickering. There is a Republican narrative and a Democratic narrative but neither tells the whole accurate story.
A federal court blocked the Biden administration’s asylum ban in July of this year. The case is on appeal and looks like will be heard by the Supreme Court. Biden obviously has an advantage on this with a politically conservative court.
His asylum restrictions that mimic two past policies, the “entry” and “transit” bans, were struck down by the courts under the Trump administration.
The court’s ruling is welcome and expected, since his policy simply rehashes prior rules that restricted access to asylum based on similar grounds, which courts already rejected. U.S. laws protect the rights of people fleeing persecution to come to this country and pursue asylum.
Biden’s asylum rules violate our laws and makes a mockery of our asylum system. The government conceded that under the ban, people with meritorious legal claims can be barred from asylum and deported to countries where they face grave harm. To them, that is an acceptable price to pay for the illusion of border management. But they are breaking the law, sowing chaos, and putting vulnerable people in harm’s way.
Simply put it is not legal to demand migrants to schedule an appointment for an asylum hearing at a legal port of entry or prove that they had already sought and been denied asylum in another country while en route to the U.S.
This is not our immigration law and if he wants it to be so, the law must be changed by Congress not by Presidential action. Executive action cannot be used to change a law.I don't see it as illegal. I hope it is successful in halting the overwhelming flow of people entering the US Illegally.
My family member had to go to court and provide documentation of having their lives in danger in Ukraine. This was before Ukrainian independence in 1991 when the Soviet Union ruled it.
"it is not legal to demand migrants to schedule an appointment for an asylum hearing at a legal port of entry or prove that they had already sought and been denied asylum in another country while en route to the U.S."
After reading the law, I don't see how this could be considered illegal.
My family had to go through an asylum hearing. We had an attorney represent them.
We were sure to obey the immigration every step of the way. We knew our family wasn't entitled to be in the United States. We wanted to follow the rules and do it right.
It's not easy, it can cost money, take time, but it's worth it.
Why do you think you are better than my family members?Biden's asylum rules have been struck down by a federal judge. They currently have a stay based on appeal which will obviously lead to the Supreme Court. All migrants deserve fair treatment under our immigration laws. Many, many are not receiving due process in terms of asylum because of Biden's new rules. His rules have really imposed severe limitations on those seeking asylum.
Okay, here is US Code 1158.
How is what is being done illegal?
Point it out to me.
§1158. Asylum
(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general
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.
(2) Exceptions
(A) Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.
(B) Time limit
Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien's arrival in the United States.
(C) Previous asylum applications
Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the alien has previously applied for asylum and had such application denied.
(D) Changed circumstances
An application for asylum of an alien may be considered, notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C), if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application within the period specified in subparagraph (B).
(E) Applicability
Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 279(g) of title 6).
(3) Limitation on judicial review
No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).
(b) Conditions for granting asylum
(1) In general
(A) Eligibility
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.
(B) Burden of proof
(i) In general
The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
(ii) Sustaining burden
The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant's burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant's testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant's burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.
(iii) Credibility determination
Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant's or witness's account, the consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal.
(2) Exceptions
(A) In general
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that-
(i) the alien ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;
(ii) the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States;
(iii) there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States;
(iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;
(v) the alien is described in subclause (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (VI) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title or section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title (relating to terrorist activity), unless, in the case only of an alien described in subclause (IV) of section 1182(a)(3)(B)(i) of this title, the Attorney General determines, in the Attorney General's discretion, that there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States; or
(vi) the alien was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.
(B) Special rules
(i) Conviction of aggravated felony
For purposes of clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony shall be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime.
(ii) Offenses
The Attorney General may designate by regulation offenses that will be considered to be a crime described in clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A).
(C) Additional limitations
The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).
(D) No judicial review
There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(v).
(3) Treatment of spouse and children
(A) In general
A spouse or child (as defined in section 1101(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of this title) of an alien who is granted asylum under this subsection may, if not otherwise eligible for asylum under this section, be granted the same status as the alien if accompanying, or following to join, such alien.
(B) Continued classification of certain aliens as children
An unmarried alien who seeks to accompany, or follow to join, a parent granted asylum under this subsection, and who was under 21 years of age on the date on which such parent applied for asylum under this section, shall continue to be classified as a child for purposes of this paragraph and section 1159(b)(3) of this title, if the alien attained 21 years of age after such application was filed but while it was pending.
(C) Initial jurisdiction
An asylum officer (as defined in section 1225(b)(1)(E) of this title) shall have initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by an unaccompanied alien child (as defined in section 279(g) of title 6), regardless of whether filed in accordance with this section or section 1225(b) of this title.
(c) Asylum status
(1) In general
In the case of an alien granted asylum under subsection (b), the Attorney General-
(A) shall not remove or return the alien to the alien's country of nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence;
(B) shall authorize the alien to engage in employment in the United States and provide the alien with appropriate endorsement of that authorization; and
(C) may allow the alien to travel abroad with the prior consent of the Attorney General.
(2) Termination of asylum
Asylum granted under subsection (b) does not convey a right to remain permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if the Attorney General determines that-
(A) the alien no longer meets the conditions described in subsection (b)(1) owing to a fundamental change in circumstances;
(B) the alien meets a condition described in subsection (b)(2);
(C) the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien is eligible to receive asylum or equivalent temporary protection;
(D) the alien has voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the alien's country of nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the alien's country of last habitual residence, by returning to such country with permanent resident status or the reasonable possibility of obtaining such status with the same rights and obligations pertaining to other permanent residents of that country; or
(E) the alien has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of his or her new nationality.
(3) Removal when asylum is terminated
An alien described in paragraph (2) is subject to any applicable grounds of inadmissibility or deportability under section 1 1182(a) and 1227(a) of this title, and the alien's removal or return shall be directed by the Attorney General in accordance with sections 1229a and 1231 of this title.
(d) Asylum procedure
(1) Applications
The Attorney General shall establish a procedure for the consideration of asylum applications filed under subsection (a). The Attorney General may require applicants to submit fingerprints and a photograph at such time and in such manner to be determined by regulation by the Attorney General.
(2) Employment
An applicant for asylum is not entitled to employment authorization, but such authorization may be provided under regulation by the Attorney General. An applicant who is not otherwise eligible for employment authorization shall not be granted such authorization prior to 180 days after the date of filing of the application for asylum.
(3) Fees
The Attorney General may impose fees for the consideration of an application for asylum, for employment authorization under this section, and for adjustment of status under section 1159(b) of this title. Such fees shall not exceed the Attorney General's costs in adjudicating the applications. The Attorney General may provide for the assessment and payment of such fees over a period of time or by installments. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the Attorney General to charge fees for adjudication services provided to asylum applicants, or to limit the authority of the Attorney General to set adjudication and naturalization fees in accordance with section 1356(m) of this title.
(4) Notice of privilege of counsel and consequences of frivolous application
At the time of filing an application for asylum, the Attorney General shall-
(A) advise the alien of the privilege of being represented by counsel and of the consequences, under paragraph (6), of knowingly filing a frivolous application for asylum; and
(B) provide the alien a list of persons (updated not less often than quarterly) who have indicated their availability to represent aliens in asylum proceedings on a pro bono basis.
(5) Consideration of asylum applications
(A) Procedures
The procedure established under paragraph (1) shall provide that-
(i) asylum cannot be granted until the identity of the applicant has been checked against all appropriate records or databases maintained by the Attorney General and by the Secretary of State, including the Automated Visa Lookout System, to determine any grounds on which the alien may be inadmissible to or deportable from the United States, or ineligible to apply for or be granted asylum;
(ii) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the initial interview or hearing on the asylum application shall commence not later than 45 days after the date an application is filed;
(iii) in the absence of exceptional circumstances, final administrative adjudication of the asylum application, not including administrative appeal, shall be completed within 180 days after the date an application is filed;
(iv) any administrative appeal shall be filed within 30 days of a decision granting or denying asylum, or within 30 days of the completion of removal proceedings before an immigration judge under section 1229a of this title, whichever is later; and
(v) in the case of an applicant for asylum who fails without prior authorization or in the absence of exceptional circumstances to appear for an interview or hearing, including a hearing under section 1229a of this title, the application may be dismissed or the applicant may be otherwise sanctioned for such failure.
(B) Additional regulatory conditions
The Attorney General may provide by regulation for any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum not inconsistent with this chapter.
(6) Frivolous applications
If the Attorney General determines that an alien has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum and the alien has received the notice under paragraph (4)(A), the alien shall be permanently ineligible for any benefits under this chapter, effective as of the date of a final determination on such application.
(7) No private right of action
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to create any substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.
(e) Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
The provisions of this section and section 1159(b) of this title shall apply to persons physically present in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands or arriving in the Commonwealth (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including persons who are brought to the Commonwealth after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) only on or after January 1, 2014.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 1, §208, as added Pub. L. 96–212, title II, §201(b), Mar. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 105 ; amended Pub. L. 101–649, title V, §515(a)(1), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5053 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title XIII, §130005(b), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2028 ; Pub. L. 104–132, title IV, §421(a), Apr. 24, 1996, 110 Stat. 1270 ; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, §604(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–690 ; Pub. L. 107–56, title IV, §411(b)(2), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 348 ; Pub. L. 107–208, §4, Aug. 6, 2002, 116 Stat. 928 ; Pub. L. 109–13, div. B, title I, §101(a), (b), May 11, 2005, 119 Stat. 302 , 303; Pub. L. 110–229, title VII, §702(j)(4), May 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 866 ; Pub. L. 110–457, title II, §235(d)(7), Dec. 23, 2008, 122 Stat. 508I will respond here in deference to brevity and not repeating the entire code.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents … mrlg072523
“The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum”So long as international law and agreements trumps national and state law this will continue to escalate.
You can't have both, it is either national sovereignty and citizens of that nation above all others, or it is a international community, globalization, and a forfeiture of national rights.
You can't have both.
I appreciate your well thought out, well explained, and detailed position on this matter.
Seen as a single issue, unrelated and unaffected by other events and concerns, I could whole heartedly agree.
Looking at this issue, in conjunction with the many other problems facing the nation at this time... in example:
City Deterioration - A prime example of this, is what was once the wealthiest well-off region of San Fransisco 5 years ago, now looks like a semi-abandoned 3rd World slum today.
This is a visual slap in the face, a wake-up to just how bad things really are in our country. Something seen in various degrees in Chicago, Seattle, New York, etc. but to see it in the Big Tech, Big Money streets of San Fransisco is telling.
Warmongering Run Amuck - This Administration has some real hard core lunatics pushing America into WWIII. To say this is the biggest issue facing us today is an understatement.
People forget that prior to the war beginning, there was supposed to be the Minsk Agreement to de-escalate the Donbas conflict. Zelensky refused that. Then Zelensky put into Ukrainian law that they were going to take back Crimea no matter what. Then Biden came out, as President, as said he/America would support Ukraine in that effort, that he/America would never accept Crimea as Russian.
The problem with what Zelensky and Biden did, stating openly and to the world they were going to take Crimea... which had been part of the Russia Republic since 2014... was they essentially said we are going to war against Russia. How else was Putin going to take that?
That is the start of this war... instead of peace and the Minsk Agreement... they chose to push Putin into defending Crimea and Russia's overall interests.
From 2014 to 2021... roughly 8 years... Putin did nothing to escalate the matter, until Ukraine/Zelensky started doing his world tour demanding support to take back Crimea and demanding to be let into NATO.
So we have a MAJOR problem, we have an Administration that still supports Ukraine in its efforts to take Crimea. And they can't do it without America... without America paying for the war, for all their country's expenses, and eventually sending our own boys and girls to die, and maybe even destroy the whole world with nuclear weapons as a cherry on top.
So... bad as the Biden Administration has allowed the migrant situation to get, among many other of his failings, nothing compares to the severity of how this Administration is wantonly marching us to Doomsday.
I know better than most just how serious a threat this is, and the lunacy in the thinking coming from the Administration and Pentagon who WANT to go to war with Russia."That is the start of this war... instead of peace and the Minsk Agreement... they chose to push Putin into defending Crimea and Russia's overall interest"
As a Russian sympathizer, I'm sure you believe that russia should be able to invade and take territory from any nation it chooses. The international community would disagree with you. Europe, NATO, and the majority of nations around the world would disagree with you.
russia invaded a sovereign nation. They illegally annexed territory that was not russian territory and had not been for decades.
I'm not certain you understand that when ANY nation is invaded, they have a right to defend themselves.
Crimea is part of the Ukraine and has been for decades. It is NOT russian territory. This is a fact.
"How else was Putin going to take that?"
He should have removed his military from Ukraine and gone back across the boarder to russia.
Should you be able to see beyond your blind allegiance to russia, you would be able to view situation in Ukraine as does most of the world.This is not the thread for this topic, which has been debated with you ad nauseam.
Clearly I disagree with your position as much as one possibly can and be debating the same issue.
Let Ukraine defend itself, without American money, weapons, or troops doing the fighting. Peace should have been sought, Crimea remaining part of Russia, which is what Crimeans voted for and wanted... in a lot higher percentage than Americans that wanted Biden as President, or this war.I will drop this but....
"Let Ukraine defend itself, without American money, weapons, or troops doing the fighting."
American money, weapons have made a difference in every world war and war since then. The US is part of NATO and NATO supports Ukraine.
I don't know if you realize this but, American troops are not engaged.
"Peace should have been sought, Crimea remaining part of Russia, which is what Crimeans voted for and wanted."
Since you've never been to Crimea or know anyone from Crimea, you wouldn't know what a farce that Crimean vote was.
"However, Obama said that the US rejected the results and warned that Washington was ready to impose sanctions on Moscow over the crisis.
The White House said that Obama "emphasised that Russia's actions were in violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and that, in co-ordination with our European partners, we are prepared to impose additional costs on Russia for its actions".
The European Union also condemned the referendum as illegal and said it is taking steps to increase sanctions against Russia. EU foreign ministers will meet today to decide whether to impose asset freeze and visa sanctions and, if so, who to target.
"The referendum is illegal and illegitimate and its outcome will not be recognised," Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European council, and José Manuel Barroso, European commission president, said in a joint statement on Sunday
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ … referendumOK Mike, lets do that, if you want to drag up another thread related to the matter I'm all for it.
I appreciate your thoughtful comment, and while it is well-written, it appears that there may be a misunderstanding regarding the subject matter at hand. The focus here is on the allocation of Federal funds towards what some may view as an extensive effort by the Biden administration to increase the number of migrants in the United States. Concerns about tax dollars being utilized for this endeavor have been raised, prompting a discussion about whether it is a necessary or appropriate use of public funds.
It is evident that there is a widespread recognition among U.S. citizens that the country's immigration laws have faced longstanding challenges. The intention behind my previous comment was to draw attention to what is perceived as a border crisis that has grown unchecked over time. This situation has resulted in several major cities struggling to accommodate the influx of migrants, who often lack adequate housing. The core question posed is whether American taxpayers should be responsible for funding the accommodation and support of the millions of migrants who have arrived at our borders, with hundreds of thousands having been admitted.
The United States is a sovereign nation operating under democratic principles, and the inquiry regarding the utilization of federal tax dollars in this context is entirely reasonable. From my perspective, I acknowledge the humanitarian aspects of individuals seeking asylum, as defined by the strictest standards. However, there are concerns that the invitation for asylum is being exploited by certain groups, prompting the need to establish limits on the number of asylum seekers admitted. Ultimately, the U.S. retains the right to deny entry to migrants if their presence becomes burdensome to American citizens, a situation that is currently apparent due to the overwhelming influx of migrants.Sharlee, Hello. I don't want to belabor the forum with an unnecessarily long response. I did respond to Mike another user here that I think also responds to your posting.
Simply put, the Biden Administration asylum rules violate immigration law. I hope, along with many others to see the Supreme Court strike them down. He cannot change code 1158. Only Congress can do so. His new asylum rules are illegal restrictions. They do not in any way make it easier to gain asylum. That is a fact. Another fact is, immigration laws almost never affect factors that drive migrants from their countries. US immigration law and these factors are two completely separate entities. Yes they affect migrants when they arrive at the border but they in no way deter them from leaving their home county.
I also stand by my comment that federal funds should be diverted away from the billions that are being used to fund empty beds in detention centers and to local officials and civil society agencies ( that receive magnitudes less) that are doing the work on the ground. As an immigrant and someone who works with the process on the ground currently I can tell you that there is much that is being missed and obscured by the country's news media reporting. Take it for what you will. Public opinion, too often, is being shaped by television that exists for ratings. I encourage people to look into the way and the amount in which ICE is funded and how the taxpayer dollar is being wasted by empty beds and enforced bed quotas. The federal budget for fiscal year 2023 still provided ICE with $1.4 billion for a total of 25,000 detention beds. This spending is a waste. It should be invested instead in building a federal system of universal representation for immigration courts, similar to the public defender system used in criminal courts. I edit myself, I could go on. I find that there is so much that the general public is missing in their understanding of the system. The smallest yet most comprehensive book on our immigration is 2,000 pages, most people never really get a good understanding. Television reporting and many journalistic attempts do it no service whatsoever.Given the current stage of our national development, my primary concern lies with the challenges faced by American citizens. Over the past few decades, it's become evident that our immigration laws have been largely disregarded and have lost their effectiveness. Consequently, your statement doesn't resonate with me at this juncture. To be quite frank, I've become quite resolute in my perspective, to the point where I question the very notion of offering asylum at this time of crisis.
It seems to me that we're already stretched to our limits as a sovereign nation, grappling with the responsibility of addressing the millions awaiting court dates and the care of over 300,000 unaccompanied children. As an American citizen, I believe it may be in our best interest to temporarily close our borders momentarily until we can effectively manage the backlog we've accumulated over decades and establish a new, comprehensive set of immigration laws.
Not looking for words, looking for solutions to stop a growing problem, and handle the decade of ignoring the problems migrants have brought to America, as well as the costs.Simply put, what you propose is illegal. The remedy you seek is only available under congressional law not presidential executive order. On a previous page I've mentioned a complete outline of pragmatic solutions from one of the agencies I partner with.
The only manner in which our immigration laws have been disregarded have been over the various executive actions over the years that were remedied through the court system. Such as is the case with Biden's rules currently. Deportations are up due to the new rules. Which have been granted a stay upon appeal. This number is about 85,000 deported since title 42 was dropped in may. That is up significantly from a year ago. The underlying system of law has remained stable and adhered to for many, many decades. If you feel that aspects of immigration law are being broken there are many nonprofit agencies that will bring them to court. I currently am aware of none that accuse immigration law of not being adhered to. Currently, only by Biden's asylum rules have been deemed illegal.
Hypothetically, you could have a completely closed border and it would not deter migrants from leaving their situations.
You may not yourself morally believe in offering asylum but the right to seek asylum was incorporated into international law following World War II. Congress adopted key provisions of the Geneva Refugee Convention (including the international definition of a refugee) into U.S. immigration law when it passed the Refugee Act of 1980. No president will change this.Faye, Willow, Whoever --- I made my point very clear, my context did speak of law, it spoke of my views in regard to a growing crisis. Yes, it is clear at this time our laws welcome asylum seekers. In my view, Congress needs to review the laws that dictate the number of asylum seekers as well as migrant workers who hope to come to America. I prefer to keep America a sovereign nation that no other nation or nation people dictate what goes on in America.
Hopefully, we can rip up the present laws, and issue new laws to replace the failing laws. Laws that remain neighborly, put America's own needs first. I don't want to pay for migrants when I see poverty-stricken children, or homeless, that need mental health care. I would rather see my taxes go to pay for better education.
Q. Is it JUST to bring a puppy or rescue dog into your home if you have no means of feeding it, bringing it to the vet, giving it attention and love? Welcome it into your home forever?
I know a man who is doing just that with a dog he "rescued" from an abusive situation.
He should bring it to the Human Society because it is still young and it would attract someone to care for it. However, he insists on keeping the dog even though he is homeless. The dog is jumping in and out of his truck and is unruly and skittish. I am afraid the dog will bite someone when the man is working. (He is a handyman for whoever will hire him.)
He has no ability to work with this dog or save it.
The dog will become a burden for this person because he needs every cent for food, doctor bills, gas for his truck, the laundromat ... (do you know how expensive it is to wash your clothes these days?)
He has no business taking care of this dog.I actually did take an immigrant into my home. We charged him $500.00 a month to rent a spare bedroom because that is what he could afford. (The going rate was much higher.) We discovered he had learned very well how to work the system to his advantage. Once, I brought him to the hospital where he had already been a month before. The government had paid for his emergency health issues. Now, as we were waiting for assistance in Emergency, (gall bladder issues,) they asked him his name and he became unglued because they did not know/find his name in the records. He actually used an alias or two and they did not know which name to use. He was furious and told them so. No attitude of appreciation from him, whatsoever.
Eventually, we had to ask to him to move out and he came up with so many excuses as to why he could not: All of them lies. He finally moved out four months later. I was so relieved.
Desperate people do desperate things.Sadly, many of the young men have grown up in places where life is far more difficult and dangerous than most Americans could appreciate or comprehend without actually spending time there.
I have spent time in Somalia and I dealt with Cuban/Hatian migrants back in 1996, I can tell you for a fact, there are many that would kill you as easy and without any more concern than I have for typing these words right now.
When you grow up in a place where life is hard and has little value, or where you see violence and murder met out on a regular basis... it becomes part of you.
I've noticed that my original post has evolved into a discussion centered around immigration law, delving into the compassionate dimensions associated with the migrant discourse. This topic has been thoroughly explored on the HP political forum, repeatedly. My sincere hope was that someone would directly address my primary question, which can be succinctly answered with a simple "yes" or "no."
Are you willing to spend your tax dollars on the now millions of immigrants that have poured into America? Period
The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers | 2023 Cost Study
March 8, 2023
FAIR's fiscal cost study
Report by FAIR Research | March 2023
The following is a summary of our cost study findings. To access our full report, including state-specific information, click here
Information on
At the start of 2023, the net cost of illegal immigration for the United States – at the federal, state, and local levels – was at least $150.7 billion.
FAIR arrived at this number by subtracting the tax revenue paid by illegal aliens – just under $32 billion – from the gross negative economic impact of illegal immigration, $182 billion.
In 2017, the estimated net cost of illegal migration was approximately $116 billion. In just 5 years, the cost to Americans has increased by nearly $35 billion.
Illegal immigration costs each American taxpayer $1,156 per year ($957 after factoring in taxes paid by illegal aliens).
Each illegal alien or U.S.-born child of illegal aliens costs the U.S. $8,776 annually.
Evidence shows that tax payments by illegal aliens cover only around a sixth of the costs they create at all levels in this country.
A large percentage of illegal aliens who work in the underground economy frequently avoid paying any income tax at all.
Many illegal aliens actually receive a net cash profit through refundable tax credit programs.
Source https://www.fairus.org/issue/publicatio … ayers-2023Simple answer: No. But things are never black and white, but always gray; there is a small percentage that actually DO need asylum, are not just running from poor economic or political scenarios.
In my initial post, I intended to convey my concern about the ongoing crisis we face today. However, I've come to accept that we may have differing viewpoints on whether this issue is still open to interpretation. In my view, the shades of gray have become an obstructive smokescreen that is no longer tolerable. I've previously expressed my stance on the importance of granting asylum to migrants who have legitimate and lawful reasons for seeking it, emphasizing the need to adhere to existing laws. Unfortunately, it appears that these laws are being consistently ignored rather than followed, and caused an overwhelming crisis for our Nation.
So, the question arises, how much longer can we navigate through this smokescreen before we collectively decide that we're unwilling to bear the costs associated with this situation?
Apologies for my frank language, but no other word seems apt for my sentiment. I've grown weary of the heartwarming migrant stories and the suggestion that this issue is anything other than a stark contrast. Are we still a sovereign nation? And are we willing to accept this type of open-border approach? Personally, I'm hesitant to allocate any more resources to migrants when we have our own citizens struggling with homelessness, poverty, and substance abuse issues, not to mention our failing education system.
In essence, I can confidently assert that I'm frustrated and fed up with the rhetoric surrounding the border crisis. I've had enough of the gray area. My perspective has sharpened, and I now see this migrant crisis in stark terms. The reality is that we have an administration that is determined to process as many migrants as possible, and they are indeed accomplishing that goal. The burden falls on us to finance this endeavor.We are a Sovereign Nation that has laws. Do you suggest that the laws be broken as Biden has done? Or do you prefer that laws be adhered to? You are ignoring a law completely. Should a president be able to subvert law? Also, many here fail to understand the history of the hell that has been created by the US government in the northern triangle that continues to drive migration today. The policies of the United States through the '80s have created the ongoing situation you see today. It is not as simple, cut and dry as many of you appear to want to believe that it is. Regardless of the anti-immigrant sentiment that some have, you are still bound by the law. If you would like them changed, it would be the Congress that does that and that will not happen in any meaningful way in the foreseeable future. We have much litigation against Biden currently because he has violated immigration law as far as being far too restrictive in the interpretation of asylum but we have absolutely zero litigation as far as Biden being too lenient on his interpretation of the law. Why? Please elaborate. How come Trump supporters are not all over the fact that Biden is breaking immigration law with his asylum ban? Most of us in immigration work feel that it's because you like it. Republicans have been completely silent on Biden's rules. It seems like people's beliefs here seem to be fluid enough to bend to meet the demands of the person they support. No consistency whatsoever. No attention to fact whatsoever. How is it a belief for an ideology if it changes situationally? When laws are broken on a whim in support of a personality, It sounds like the communist banana Republic I came from.
"How come Trump supporters are not all over the fact that Biden is breaking immigration law with his asylum ban? :
He is not respecting his own asylum ban. He is inviting migrants via an app, he offers dog whistles to encourage migrants to come, and he alligated more hands to process migrants as quickly as it's ascertained they will be allowed to stay, and wait for court dates that never come.
That border is all but wide open, and it is by intention. The buses pile up and shuttle migrants to wherever they choose to go.
If it were up to me the laws would be changed with a low cap on how many we give asylum yearly. And green cards for those who have the skills to work in jobs we need to fill. I am all about America first, and not in any respect shy about sharing it.
Biden could care little about immigration laws, he wants open borders. In my honest view, he is anti-democracy and a very dangerous man.So you are saying that he has enacted two new conditions on asylum but is not adhering to them? Why? This is not correct. The app has been struck down in the federal court ruling as his other rule that you must apply for asylum in a country that is passed through. The app extremely limits the number that can apply for asylum. It is extremely filled with glitches and allows few appointments at best. This is illegal. This will be heard by the Supreme Court. As far as a dog whistle, that is not anything that can be quantified but the two components of his asylum rules are illegal. They violate immigration law. Are you really okay with a violation of law? That is the real question. The two components that he has applied to asylum do not equate to an open border in any manner whatsoever. The facts do not support this. Biden has not exceeded the cap for asylum at all. Those who are anti-immigration are cheering this on, on the sidelines quietly. That's why you hear no Republican voices on it. They try and distort it believing that Americans won't understand the process and they made a good bet there, they are right. Americans don't understand immigration law. . Shame. I don't know why anyone believes there are open borders when there are illegal rules put in place that have reduced asylum. Whether anyone likes it or not, anyone on U.S. soil may request asylum, no matter how they arrived. Please refer to the judges statement .
“The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum,” (a third country and making an appointment).
Maybe I do not explain it in plain enough terms but here is an article.
https://apnews.com/article/asylum-limit … 1e2a270429
He is not adhering to the letter of the law as far as immigration but certainly it is not in the manner that you suggest is quite opposite.
And this is a very difficult issue for those who are purely partisan. It seems there is a lot of trouble maintaining opposable thoughts. Many want to believe that Biden is doing everything he can to open borders but the facts just don't support that and the court says it is quite the opposite.
I support Biden on many other issues but not this one.Help needed . . . I read posts in these forums on my desktop PC and tablet. Not to be critical or rude, but it is laboring to read your posts on my tablet. So, I pass over them. I ask could you use a paragraph structure? That would enable me to gain insights from your perspective. I did read the article linked. Thanks.
Keep an eye on the EU... especially in the coming couple of years, this will help tell you where our decisions regarding the open border is going to lead the nation.
Nations like Poland that denied the endless waves of migrants hitting the EU from Africa isolated themselves (good thing they did too, because they have taken in millions of Ukrainians).
Nations like France and Germany allowed entire regions to be overrun, and I believe they will have hardships and internal strife for decades to come.
As with the US, this is now in escalation, the number of migrants pouring in from Africa are growing in numbers, not declining.
In 2020, 6.8 million immigrants were living in France, representing 10.2 percent of the total population in the country. I'm sure in 2023 that percentage has increased to around 12% or more.
Migrant arrivals in Italy on the rise, despite high danger - Feb 2023
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/mi … 023-02-26/
In 2022, 105,129 migrants reached Italy in total, up from 67,477 in 2021 and 34,154 in 2020.
The U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) said in 2022 51% of migrant sea crossings to Italy departed from Libya [the nation America just had to overthrow and leave in chaotic ruin about a decade ago].
---
The point I am making is, in the EU there are nations like France and Italy that are being hit heavily with migrants that have no cultural or language commonality with the citizens of their nations.
Other nations like Poland and Hungary have isolated themselves from populations that do not share common cultural, linguistic and historical backgrounds.
We will see how things fair.Thanks, Ken! I liked the referenced article and its use of subheadings. Nice!
I don't closely follow the EU, but Arthur gives good replies regarding the UK on different topics. He hasn't done so on this one, I think.
I do follow Sweden kind of closely as I have a close friend living there. We email each other several times a week. I know her position and attitude about migrants and a close friend of hers.
Sweden changed their migration policy not long ago taking a stronger stance. Next is the opening statement to their nation's website on migration:
"Sweden’s migration policy is undergoing a paradigm shift. The Government is intensifying its efforts to reduce, in full compliance with Sweden’s international commitments, the number of migrants coming irregularly to Sweden. Labour immigration fraud and abuses must be stopped and the ‘shadow society’ combated. Sweden will continue to have dignified reception standards, and those who have no grounds for protection or other legal right to stay in Sweden must be expelled."
Sweden’s new migration policy from the Government Offices of Sweden
https://www.government.se/government-po … on-policy/
And, from Linkin comes:
Why Sweden is a bad choice for immigration in 2023?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-swed … -ultimate-
To contrast from InfoMigrants is the next article:
'Sweden as we know it is dying': From welcoming migrants to discouraging them
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/46 … aging-them
In essence, as many of your previous posts have shared immigration is a distinct problem for many nations. Off the cuff it could be said is overwhelming for the nations they head for.You can have globalism, no borders, no cohesive collective in society.
Or you can have Nationalism, Patriotism, social and cultural norms.
You cannot have both.
Humankind is tribalistic, its in the DNA. Nations will be destroyed, civilization will collapse, long before the innateness of tribalism is done away with.
That is why there is so much success with identity politics in America, people want to belong to a tribe: race, religion, sexual preference, political party, etc.
The difference between those who immigrated to Sweden in the last decade and those who were born there, is not merely racial, its cultural, its beliefs... its tribal on every level.It is startling and fascinating just how many people do not understand this basic fact, or simply set it aside as not mattering. As we bring in hordes of people with different social norms the country will continue to fracture into "tribes"...but it doesn't matter. We don't need a common basis, do we?
Only if you want continued existence for that society or that nation.
Why would someone defend, serve, protect, a nation that does not provide and protect their citizen's interests?
Like I mentioned in another thread, we are going to have examples in real time, to see how this all works out.
Poland and Hungary have essentially denied immigrants coming from outside of the European region. While nations like France, Germany and Italy are taking them in by the hundreds of thousands.
All those nations are dealing with economic hardships of varying degrees because of Russian sanctions and the Ukraine war as well, which is sure to acerbate any frictions caused between clashing peoples/cultures.Yes... Precisely the point. And maybe time to just speak up, be truthful, and just say --- enough is enough. I doubt whether many Americans want to be part of the EU. We have worked on building a nation that supports our values, and our ideologies. Why in the hell do we want to emulate a nation where open borders did not in any fashion work? I won't bore you with links, but Germany, France, the UK Sweden, and more are having horrific issues with migrants, and their open borders.
Migrants can come the right way or no way, in my view.I agree 100%. And, outside of a few people that actually need asylum, immigration should be shut down outside of those with the skill (and language) to survive and add something to the country.
Ken, without immigrants who literally built this country, where would we be?
For decades, American immigration policies have reenforced the false notion that undocumented immigrants are dangerous criminals. From Clinton’s militarization of the southern border in 1993 to the creation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the September 11, 2001 attacks and to Trump’s detention of asylum seekers in kennel camps.
Washington has normalized the view that undocumented immigrants are a threat to America. A threat to be policed, detained, and deported. Though time and again proven untrue, this rhetoric, echoed in society as a whole, has only become more pervasive in recent years. Most horrifically, it was on display in the “manifesto” posted by the gunman who murdered 22 people at an El Paso Walmart.
Immigrants have long made America great. In fact, many of your (and everyone here) own ancestors were undocumented immigrants, beneficiaries of an era of open borders.
While “my grandparents came here legally” is a common response among white opponents of immigration reform, it misses the flip side of American history: For most of its history, the United States has had open borders for white people. Many of our forebearers were undocumented immigrants, no different from Central American migrants today.
Effectively, U.S. immigration policy into the 1920s said that if you were a white, able-bodied man, the border was open. Simply stating the name of the ship on which one arrived was all that was required for a foreigner to come to America with the intention of staying.
If your parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents immigrated to the United States before 1924, when xenophobic panic about Southern and Eastern Europeans spurred the first truly restrictive laws for white migrants, they were undocumented, too. Throughout history, undocumented immigrants have contributed greatly.
Of course, a history lesson alone won’t persuade whites whose anti-immigration stance is purely the product of racism, after all, that’s what created our current, restrictive system in the first place.
Are you proposing that our immigration law should be based upon nationalism?
Congress wrote the “national origins” quotas that became law in 1924 to restrict the entry of Jews, Italians (Catholics), Greeks and East Europeans, particularly Poles and Russians. Advocates openly stated Congress should bar individuals from such countries from immigrating to America because their “races” were inferior. Is this something we seek a return to? Of course with sanitized language. Now we just call certain groups of people incompatible with so called American "culture"?
I disagree that you cannot have both globalism and nationalism. The national identity of this country was built on global migration. The amalgamation of nationalities, IS our our actual national identity or culture.The process of immigration was never smooth, never easy, never supported by the government.
The people who immigrated here from the times you are harkening back to, paid their way or sold themselves into servitude to get here.
The atrocities people consider inhumane today, would have been considered humane and considerate treatment by many of those who traveled to America even one hundred years ago.
The system that exists today, that provides considerable financial support, housing, transportation, instruction on how to apply for government aid, etc.
When word gets back home... of all the good things immigrants can get, work visas, financial support, housing, etc... those millions here will entice many millions more to come.
White, Black, Muslim, Jew, it doesn't matter, what matters is the systemic overload, counties with a population of 90,000 being asked to support 100,000 migrants. Cities with 100,000 homeless living on their streets being told to house 100,000 migrants.
This is what is occurring now in our country, because we have a system that is aiding millions to get here, as I have explained, the Biden Administration is literally funding through support of the UN and various Non-Profits that are aiding and funding these waves of immigrants to come.
Here is how insane the Biden Administration is regarding the matter:
https://cis.org/Oped/United-Nations-Gra … mmigration
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/co … rders-push
https://nypost.com/2022/04/12/bidens-we … mmigrants/
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 … stuff.htmlThanks for the paragraph format. Much easier to read.
I will digest what you shared.
However, I am perplexed. It comes down to what taxpayers, the citizens, desire, doesn't it? " . . . of the people, by the people, for the people . . ." refers to American citizens, not, non-citizens until they are naturalized when they become citizens as I see it.
Yes, we have a representative government, but it is divided by ideology, and immigration reform by Congress to make new laws for immigration is being ignored and has been for decades. Current law is not meeting the changed dynamics of migration. It is a failure in my perspective at this time.
This is a political chat forum... I will share an honest view. First, I am in no way sympathetic at this point to the stream of people coming into my country illegally. They need to ask for asylum in the first nation they cross into. I am not any longer willing to be complacent about saving the world --- period. I want America to have a closed border. If someone wants to come --- go through the channels. many do. Many have been pushed to the back of the line due to the millions that felt they would doit the illegal way.
For me, it comes down to the laws need to be not amended, but completely done away with. I would hope new laws would forbid anyone from walking in, and if they do they are returned immediately in the same manner they crossed. Perhaps not taking any asylum seekers who cross through other countries to reach the US should be automatically expelled. Come the right way or don't come. I am not for admitting anyone who does not have a skill that may be needed, and I would also like to see a cap on how many we even consider for asylum.
And as far as Biden, he has failed, any solutions he has initiated failed. His bandaids were meant to fail, and have. He is a disgrace.
To be honest, I think most Americans do not support letting migrants in at this time, they want the asylum automatic door shut, and shut for a long time. I for one do not appreciate federal funds going to this pet cause Biden has adopted."pet cause Biden has a adopted."
HA!!!!!
Is it kind?
is it just?
is it loving?
TO ANYONE????
No.
An astrologer on George Norie's Coast to Coast radio show informed us that Biden has Venus and Sun conjunct. So, this explains why he seems soft and mushy, smelling little girl's hair, talking about his own hairy legs, tying so hard to seem cool/hip/kind. Kind Joe?
No, just confused, overly lenient and W E A K !!!
He wears Rose Colored glasses, puppet or not.
And when he raises his voice in serious-mode to seem powerful and in control, he seems, (to me,) to be acting.
In my view, he's just a marshmallow who's easily manipulated.
And his acting is pretty good. He actually did get a lot of votes in the last election. I really wonder how many of those people who voted for the Biden/Harris ticket now regret it. I would love to hear from them in these forums, but alas.Agree 100% I think he is an inept man, always has been, and he is void of conscience. I also question his values, after looking into the allegations of his Son, makes me wonder if he just did not use him as a fall guy to make money. I will stand down on that thought due to a lack of evidence, but I can't say I have not considered this thought.
"void of conscience."
Yet Jill married him. Water sinks to it's own level.
The problem is the flow of migrants coming is GROWING and UNENDING.
When we had the Cuban Migrant crisis in 1996, it was a set amount of Migrants (about 25k if I remember correctly), a majority of which were prisoners released from Cuba told to float to America or die trying.
This is nothing like that, as I noted, we are paying with federal funds, non-profits and UN efforts, that are in foreign countries, helping people get to our borders and helping them when they have crossed the borders.
I do not agree that we should be helping facilitate this ongoing migration.
We simply cannot support the tens of millions of people that will continue to flow into our country so long as these policies and efforts are funded and remain in place.So agree Ken, My primary concern today, lies with the challenges faced by American citizens. It's become evident that our immigration laws have been largely disregarded and have lost their effectiveness. I actually beleive we at one time or may still have, offered a yearly cap on how many we would offer asylum to.
Ken, I've become quite resolute in my view, to the point where I question the very notion of offering asylum to anyone at this time due to the crisis we see at the border at this time. It seems to me that we're already stretched to our limits as a sovereign nation. We are currently grappling with the responsibility of addressing the many millions awaiting court dates and the care of over 300,000 unaccompanied children, some of whom have been missed "placed". As a citizen, I believe it may be in our best interest to temporarily close our border until we can effectively manage the (mess) backlog we've accumulated over decades and establish a new, comprehensive set of immigration laws.
Ignoring the problems migrants have brought to America, seems to be the "trend"...
This is one of the things that infuriate me.
I'm sorry democrats, illegal aliens should not be given preferential treatment over American Citizens. Especially 95-year-old war veterans. Watch the videos with this story.
"95-year-old veteran kicked out of nursing home to make way for illegal aliens
Under Joe Biden's dumpster-fire presidency, the welfare of illegal aliens is prioritized over the well-being of U.S. military veterans who risked their lives to serve the nation.
In the latest slap in the face to Americans, 95-year-old Korean War veteran Frank Tammaro was kicked out of his nursing home, so the facility can house illegal aliens.
“I thought my suitcases were going to be on the curb,” Tammaro said. “If it wasn’t for my daughter, they would’ve been on the curb.”
The shocking situation unfolded in September 2022, when the nonagenarian was informed by the Island Shores Senior Residence in Staten Island, New York, that he had to vacate the nursing home by March 1, 2023 because the facility was being sold, so it could be converted into a migrant shelter.
"The thing I'm annoyed about is how they did it. It was very disgraceful what they did to the people in Island Shores," Tammaro said.
"Everything was done behind closed doors. We didn't have a chance to actually make any attempt to stop them because there wasn't enough time."
Fortunately, Tammaro's daughter was able to take him in, but the fate of the other nursing-home residents is unclear.
Malliotakis was also enraged when she learned of the back-alley deal that resulted in the displacement of Tammaro and seven other veterans who had lived at Island Shores Senior Residence.
"My blood pressure went through the roof when I found out Homes for the Homeless cut a deal with the City of New York to turn Island Shores into a migrant shelter," the congresswoman said, according to Fox News.
Our tax dollars as citizens of New York should not be utilized to house citizens of other countries, especially at the expense of our senior citizens and veterans who put their lives on the line, paid taxes their whole lives and built our communities," she underscored.
Malliotakis also lashed out at Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
"Where’s the compassion for our elderly who built our community & paid taxes their whole lives?" she wrote.
Malliotakis joins the legions of Americans who are enraged by President Joe Biden's refusal to stem the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis, saying it shows that our country's "priorities are backwards."
It's especially ironic and sinister that left-wing officials decided to make the borough of Staten Island -- the lone GOP stronghold in New York City -- a dumping ground for unvetted armies of illegal aliens.
Not surprisingly, the move has infuriated local residents, who protested the destructive policy.
To underscore how cataclysmic the migrant crisis is, even liberals such as NYC Mayor Eric Adams admit the deluge of more than 110,000 illegal aliens "will destroy New York City."
"Never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to. I don't see an ending to this," Adams said earlier this month. "This issue will destroy New York City -- destroy New York City."
https://www.wnd.com/2023/09/95-year-old … sgraceful/Tiny house villages an urban farming is not a bad idea now, it's working for our community. Most everyone still wants to have faith in their Politicans and the powers to be.
"Humankind is tribalistic, its in the DNA. Nations will be destroyed, civilization will collapse, long before the innateness of tribalism is done away with."
Ken
~ to think otherwise is utopian.
The difficulty is in determining which is a more workable reality:
~ Utopianism or Republicanism ~
"Utopianism is the general label for a number of different ways of dreaming or thinking about, describing or attempting to create a better society. Utopianism is derived from the word utopia, coined by Thomas More." online dictionary
Thomas Moore and Utopia:
https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/ite … ealised%3F
"Republicanism is a theory of government that emphasizes the participation of citizens for the common good of the community. The responsibilities and duties of citizens are paramount, and the exemplary citizen readily subordinates personal to public interests."
online dictionarywhoo-hoo
Sept 260,000 poured in record broken
Unlawful crossings along the southern border reached a historical high as the border patrol. struggles to contain mass migration.
https://nypost.com/2023/09/30/record-se … er-report/
Is anyone concerned yet?This cannot be true. We are told, after all, that border crossings are down, that illegal crossings are down, that we do not need a wall, and that millions of illegals are good for the country.
Dan,
Oh, absolutely, I couldn't agree more. I mean, Biden's border management has been flawless, like a precision Swiss watch, right from the moment he strolled into the White House. It's truly mind-boggling how the media can't seem to grasp such obvious excellence. I mean, sure, last month the U.S. Border Patrol reported just 232,972 migrant encounters, and in July it was a paltry 183,494 encounters – and this month, oh boy, a whopping 260,000. It's almost as if they're doing it just to mess with Biden, because we all know the borders are locked up tighter than Fort Knox, and there's definitely no migrant community setting up shop in O'hare airport. And New York? Well, they're just being outrageously rude, right?
And yes, anyone with even half a functioning brain knows that undocumented immigrants are just the bee's knees for our beloved country. I mean, who needs child labor laws when 14-year-olds can handle those meat saws in our finest meatpacking plants, right? And don't get me started on the fantastic price drops in the street drug market – it's practically a public service.
I'll never understand why some people can't see the sheer authenticity oozing out of Biden. I mean, he's so genuine that sometimes he's just too darn empathetic to even finish a sentence. Bless his heart. (tears in my eyes) NOT --- know this was fun
Related Discussions
- 177
Illegal Immigrants Pouring Without Any Indication Of A slow Down.
by Sharlee 6 months ago
I see no need for a lengthy introduction to this thread. No need to make mention of the historical stats to prove the point that Biden's administration has seen many millions presenting at our border, and this week we see a huge increase in the numbers. What looks like will be historic numbers for...
- 148
Is Biden the real danger to Democracy?
by Readmikenow 2 weeks ago
To suppress Americans who disagree with biden he is currently fighting in the Supreme Court to continue having the power to violate Americans' 1st Amendment rights & censor them online. Supreme Court frowns at limiting biden administration’s contact with tech companiesThe high court...
- 183
Biden's Border Crisis - Is It About To Get Worse?
by Sharlee 23 months ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … SKBN2B81M5Migrant 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”...
- 48
Everyone Can Now Agree - The US Has A Border Crisis - CNN
by ga anderson 16 months ago
CNN said it so it must be official, Democrats agree there is a border crisis.https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/16/politics … index.htmlPres Biden has a plan, he's building more border walls.Biden administration working on more fixes to Trump border wall construction.Title 42 was trashed as...
- 13
Biden Admin to Expand Green Card Access In Deportation Cases
by Ken Burgess 3 weeks ago
The Biden administration is reportedly considering expanding noncitizens’ access to green cards, which confer legal permanent residence in the U.S.White House and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials are looking into expanding the “cancellation of removal” program. Officials are working...
- 14
Vaccinated in USA must wear masks but infected migrants released
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
So, if the biden administration is serious about Covid...why are they releasing infected migrants into the United States? Vaccinated Americans must wear masks, but infected migrants are welcome into the USA. It makes no sense."White House principal deputy press secretary Karine...