Immigration Issues and Reform

[lawtig02]

I don't think asylum seekers count as illegal.

The decrease seems to be people sneaking across, not asylum seekers:

Last month, Border Patrol recorded about 8,450 apprehensions of migrants who crossed into the country unlawfully between official entry points along the U.S.-Mexico border, the statistics show.

Right. The numbers in that article are apples and oranges. Under Biden, when we were still complying with asylum laws, asylum seekers counted as border encounters. That’s the point.

 

[ZenMode]

Right. The numbers in that article are apples and oranges. Under Biden, when we were still complying with asylum laws, asylum seekers counted as border encounters. That’s the point.

The article said that Biden had over 8,000 illegal apprehensions in one day. I mean, the lowest in 25 years IS the lowest in 25 years, right?

 

[superrific]

I don't think asylum seekers count as illegal.

LOLOLOL. The vast majority of the illegals you complain about are asylum seekers. Everyone in the NYC hotels are there because they are seeking asylum. Everyone Abbott and DeSantis were shipping across the country -- asylum seekers. The killer of Laken Riley -- asylum seeker. That's why they are in the country and not deported.

What you just wrote is one of the single most inaccurate things a person can write about immigration law or policy.

This is a good example of why it's important to know what you're talking about before spouting off. It's also a good example of why language matters -- you know, actual language as people actually use it, as opposed to weird one-off, made-up definitions.

When liberals say that the phrase "illegal immigrant" is misleading, you mock us but then you commit this hilarious self-own category mistake. That's why we don't throw around the word "illegal immigrant," because we prefer to be exact, because we prefer to be correct in our assessments. Being in the United States without documentation is not actually a crime. People paroled into the US are here with authorization -- i.e. not illegally. The only category of person who is an actual "illegal" immigrant is a person who has been previously deported and returns without going through a port of entry.

Anyway, now that your entire understanding of immigration law/policy has been upended, would you care to revise?

 

[lawtig02]

The article said that Biden had over 8,000 illegal apprehensions in one day. I mean, the lowest in 25 years IS the lowest in 25 years, right?

1. The numbers of actually illegal border crossings are down a bit. Probably. We can't know for sure, of course, because all we can count is encounters.

2. The numbers are not down nearly as much as Team Trump is suggesting because they were already WAY down by the end of Biden's term.

3. What's REALLY down is legal border crossings by asylum seekers because Trump effectively ended that program, in contravention of both US and international law.

4. Border encounters also went way down at the beginning of Trump's first term. Then they went way up before cratering during Covid. So time will tell what happens this time.

 

[ZenMode]

LOLOLOL. The vast majority of the illegals you complain about are asylum seekers. Everyone in the NYC hotels are there because they are seeking asylum. Everyone Abbott and DeSantis were shipping across the country -- asylum seekers. The killer of Laken Riley -- asylum seeker. That's why they are in the country and not deported.

What you just wrote is one of the single most inaccurate things a person can write about immigration law or policy.

This is a good example of why it's important to know what you're talking about before spouting off. It's also a good example of why language matters -- you know, actual language as people actually use it, as opposed to weird one-off, made-up definitions.

When liberals say that the phrase "illegal immigrant" is misleading, you mock us but then you commit this hilarious self-own category mistake. That's why we don't throw around the word "illegal immigrant," because we prefer to be exact, because we prefer to be correct in our assessments. Being in the United States without documentation is not actually a crime. People paroled into the US are here with authorization -- i.e. not illegally. The only category of person who is an actual "illegal" immigrant is a person who has been previously deported and returns without going through a port of entry.

Anyway, now that your entire understanding of immigration law/policy has been upended, would you care to revise?

Two things can be true at one time. It can't be true that there was a well documented border crisis, consisting of asylum seekers who were following the correct process, during the Biden administration.

It can also be true that, in Trump's first full one in office, we had the lowest number of illegal border crossings in 25 years.

Based on those two truths, I'm not entirely sure what you think I should revise.

 

[finesse]

Two things can be true at one time. It can't be true that there was a well documented border crisis, consisting of asylum seekers who were following the correct process, during the Biden administration.

It can also be true that, in Trump's first full one in office, we had the lowest number of illegal border crossings in 25 years.

Based on those two truths, I'm not entirely sure what you think I should revise.

Among other considerations is that there is a well rumored border crisis. Show me the documentation with reliable numbers from reliable sources.

Of course, you won't because you can't so I expect a change of topic. Maybe you could address the deceptive comparisons concerning the current state of immigration but you probably won't do that , either.

 

[ZenMode]

Among other considerations is that there is a well rumored border crisis. Show me the documentation with reliable numbers from reliable sources.

Of course, you won't because you can't so I expect a change of topic. Maybe you could address the deceptive comparisons concerning the current state of immigration but you probably won't do that , either.

This is what the crisis along the US border looks like​

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/21/us/migrant-influx-us-border-what-it-looks-like/index.html

U.S. grapples with humanitarian crisis at southern border

Border Patrol detained a record number of migrants in a single day this month. And U.S. officials met with the president of Mexico to address the root cause of migration this week. MSNBC political analyst and New York Times Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker joined guest host Julián...

www.msnbc.com

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/21/us/migrant-influx-us-border-what-it-looks-like/index.html

The US border crisis - in four graphs

As migration into the US from Mexico continues to surge, it's leading to deadly consequences.

www.bbc.com

CBP Enforcement Statistics

Securing America's Borders

www.cbp.gov

 

[finesse]

Two and three year old articles? That's the best you can do? You've neither established large numbers or ,more particularly, that it constitutes a crisis other than it offends the blatant racism of the Republican Party.

 

[ZenMode]

Two and three year old articles? That's the best you can do? You've neither established large numbers or ,more particularly, that it constitutes a crisis other than it offends the blatant racism of the Republican Party.

That's when the crisis was happening. Were you expecting articles from before the crisis started or after it ended?

You asked for reputable sources - done.

You asked for data - done.

 

[finesse]

That's when the crisis was happening. Were you expecting articles from before the crisis started or after it ended?

You asked for reputable sources - done.

You asked for data - done.

I asked you to show me the crisis. You showed me an increase for a couple of years after Covid and hid the decrease in those numbers in the years that followed. You then pretended that a level of immigrant population lower than it was 20 years ago is a crisis. The only crisis is in the heads of stupids and bigots.

 

[ZenMode]

I asked you to show me the crisis. You showed me an increase for a couple of years after Covid and hid the decrease in those numbers in the years that followed. You then pretended that a level of immigrant population lower than it was 20 years ago is a crisis. The only crisis is in the heads of stupids and bigots.

Yes, it was a crisis that lasted 2-3 years, as you already pointed out. It was acknowledged by CNN and MSNBC and the data from CBP shows the increase.

 

[CRHeel94]

I wouldn't be surprised to see encounters drop. The Venezuela/Nicaragua/Cuba migrant export operation is done; they achieved their goal.

 

[finesse]

Yes, it was a crisis that lasted 2-3 years, as you already pointed out. It was acknowledged by CNN and MSNBC and the data from CBP shows the increase.

What made it a crisis?

 

[ZenMode]

What made it a crisis?

I'm not doing the reading for you. Again, I provided sources that you would see as reliable and I provided data from CBP.

If you want details, I'm quite certain most of the links I posted will provide them.

 

[superrific]

Two things can be true at one time. It can't be true that there was a well documented border crisis, consisting of asylum seekers who were following the correct process, during the Biden administration.

It can also be true that, in Trump's first full one in office, we had the lowest number of illegal border crossings in 25 years.

Based on those two truths, I'm not entirely sure what you think I should revise.

Unfortunately, you're going to need to revise pretty much everything you've said about migrants.

Pretty much ALL the problems that Pubs scream about involve asylum seekers. The people in the NYC hotels? Asylum seekers. Laken Riley's killer? Asylum seekers. The big surge of migrants in Texas, that were exported around the country? Asylum seekers. They are all asylum seekers. So if you now say that asylum seekers don't count as illegal, then everything you've said about these "illegal immigrants" is just wrong. Everything.

This has been explained to you before, many times, and yet only now do you seem to get the point. When you think it helps your guy. LOL. Once again:

When a non-citizen comes to the US and presents him/herself to a border agent requesting asylum, the border agent determines whether there is a "credible fear" of persecution in the home country. Part of that determination is whether the individual has something to fear; part of it also is the conditions in the home country. Either way, it's a low bar. If someone shows up from Australia and says, "I need asylum from persecution by the Aussies," and the persecution in question is 6 months in the pokey for shoplifting, that's not credible fear. But if someone from El Salvador says, the gangs and the government are targeting me, beating me, and forcing my kids to work for them, that's credible fear.

Once a person is deemed to have a credible fear, the government is obligated to give them an individualized hearing to assess those claims and see if the person actually qualifies for asylum. Obligated. By law. But there's a huge backlog, so what do the people do instead? They could be housed in a detention camp, provided that the accommodations meet basic standards of decency. But with a years-long backlog and tremendous cost to maintaining such facilities, the government has found it better to admit those people under the legal concept of parole (note see below). They get a court date and they have to show up for it.

That's how it works. They can't be made to stay in Mexico -- that's why "remain in mexico" was illegal and the courts dissolved it. They can't be deported until their claims are processed.

The biggest and most important provision of the bipartisan bill the Pubs refused to pass last year was the provision for greatly expanding the number of immigration judges. Because that backlog is the cause of everything. If the asylum claim can be heard in three months, then the person is either formally admitted or deported in that time frame. But the backlog is 10 years. And that's an inducement for people to come. They show up, say asylum, and the government says, "OK, see you back here in 2034." Meanwhile, they are in the country. They can't work (but do in the black market or in criminal activity) but they are safe.

Folks like you kept going about how that bill was worthless, blah blah blah, when in fact it's precisely the solution. There was a bunch of other stuff about closing the border if crossings are too high -- that was all theatrics. None of it matters if the US could process the claims expeditiously.

This is at least the third time I've explained it to you and there will not be a fourth. You should be able to see now why your admission that "asylum seekers are not illegal" forces a revisitation of everything you've ever said on the topic, because everything you've ever said relied on the assumption that asylum seekers were "illegal."

 

[ZenMode]

Unfortunately, you're going to need to revise pretty much everything you've said about migrants.

Pretty much ALL the problems that Pubs scream about involve asylum seekers. The people in the NYC hotels? Asylum seekers. Laken Riley's killer? Asylum seekers. The big surge of migrants in Texas, that were exported around the country? Asylum seekers. They are all asylum seekers. So if you now say that asylum seekers don't count as illegal, then everything you've said about these "illegal immigrants" is just wrong. Everything.

This has been explained to you before, many times, and yet only now do you seem to get the point. When you think it helps your guy. LOL. Once again:

When a non-citizen comes to the US and presents him/herself to a border agent requesting asylum, the border agent determines whether there is a "credible fear" of persecution in the home country. Part of that determination is whether the individual has something to fear; part of it also is the conditions in the home country. Either way, it's a low bar. If someone shows up from Australia and says, "I need asylum from persecution by the Aussies," and the persecution in question is 6 months in the pokey for shoplifting, that's not credible fear. But if someone from El Salvador says, the gangs and the government are targeting me, beating me, and forcing my kids to work for them, that's credible fear.

Once a person is deemed to have a credible fear, the government is obligated to give them an individualized hearing to assess those claims and see if the person actually qualifies for asylum. Obligated. By law. But there's a huge backlog, so what do the people do instead? They could be housed in a detention camp, provided that the accommodations meet basic standards of decency. But with a years-long backlog and tremendous cost to maintaining such facilities, the government has found it better to admit those people under the legal concept of parole (note see below). They get a court date and they have to show up for it.

That's how it works. They can't be made to stay in Mexico -- that's why "remain in mexico" was illegal and the courts dissolved it. They can't be deported until their claims are processed.

The biggest and most important provision of the bipartisan bill the Pubs refused to pass last year was the provision for greatly expanding the number of immigration judges. Because that backlog is the cause of everything. If the asylum claim can be heard in three months, then the person is either formally admitted or deported in that time frame. But the backlog is 10 years. And that's an inducement for people to come. They show up, say asylum, and the government says, "OK, see you back here in 2034." Meanwhile, they are in the country. They can't work (but do in the black market or in criminal activity) but they are safe.

Folks like you kept going about how that bill was worthless, blah blah blah, when in fact it's precisely the solution. There was a bunch of other stuff about closing the border if crossings are too high -- that was all theatrics. None of it matters if the US could process the claims expeditiously.

This is at least the third time I've explained it to you and there will not be a fourth. You should be able to see now why your admission that "asylum seekers are not illegal" forces a revisitation of everything you've ever said on the topic, because everything you've ever said relied on the assumption that asylum seekers were "illegal."

To my knowledge, I've never said anything about the bill that Republicans/Trump stopped.

I'll add that I more or less agree with everything you said about legal vs illegal immigration.

None of that changes the fact that Trump's first full month in office had the lowest number of illegal crossings in 25 years.

YOU are assuming that I'm confused about something that I'm not confused about.

 

[lawtig02]

None of that changes the fact that Trump's first full month in office had the lowest number of illegal crossings in 25 years.

Again, we can't know if this is true because every other month in the last 25 years has included legal asylum-seekers in the border encounter numbers. If you stripped those out, it's entirely possible the number of encounters with people coming across illegally was lower in any number of months over that time period. And we can't get reliable numbers for "illegal crossings" at all because all we can accurately measure is encounters.

 

[altmin]

US Suspends Military Flights For Deportation Weeks After Sending 'Chained' Migrants To India: Report

Amid President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration, his administration in America has reportedly stopped using the military aircraft to deport migrants who entered the United States illegally due to high costs.

www.ndtv.com

The deportation of illegal migrants is traditionally overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, which uses commercial flights for the operations. Since the Trump administration wanted to send a message to migrants about their stringent policies, they used military flights.

However, these planes took longer routes and transported fewer migrants at higher cost to taxpayers than the government's typical deportation flights on civilian aircraft, the WSJ report said.

It found that three deportation flights to India alone cost $3 million each. Flights to Guantanamo, which carried just a dozen people, had a cost of at least $20,000 per migrant, the report showed.

In comparison, the government data shows that a standard US Immigration and Customs Enforcement flight costs $8,500 per flight hour. According to the WSJ report, the figure is closer to $17,000 per flight hour for international trips.

But, the cost of flying a C-17, which is designed to carry heavy cargo and troops, is $28,500 per hour, according to US Transportation Command, which provided the aircraft.

Adding to higher flying costs, the C-17s needed to take a longer route as they haven't been using Mexico's airspace, which can add several hours to flights destined for Central and South America, the report said.

 

[StrangePackage]

All those DOGE savings have to go to something, right?

 

[finesse]

All those DOGE savings have to go to something, right?

Seems like it would be cheaper to keep them. Maybe find some Crayola throwback flesh colored crayons to help them blend in better.