Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

heartlikealion

Huge ICE raid in my state

Recommended Posts

Just now, TechWife said:

 

I'll add to this:

6. Undercover work.

7. It is a fact that there is no interest from the perspective of our law makers in increasing legal immigration, for the purposes of temporary work or otherwise. Visa approvals are down and the administration is seeking to suspend the refugee program altogether next year. I am not stating political opinion, I am stating fact.

To be fair, the proposed suspension of the program is because the system as it currently stands is struggling to absorb the massive volume increase.  It isn’t happening in a vacuum.  

I’m of the unpopular opinion that stands for a complete shut down of refugee and legal immigration pending a review and overhaul of the existing system and assimilating all those already here, then reopening the process with broadening legal immigration and visas.   But until the current people are helped, including American citizens who cannot access basic resources THEY need for their survival, it’s a tough pill for much of the public to swallow.  I’m pretty pro-immigration but the current situation is unsustainable and fixing it in media res isn’t working well at all, and hasn’t for the past four presidents.  

It’s not as much of a partisan issue as the current media climate seems to cast it.  But alas, calm discussion of solutions doesn’t sell papers or ad spots.

Flame away, I suppose.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well folks, I'm bowing out because this is going the predictable way.

I will say I am super glad (and not surprised) to hear that all the kids were reunited with their families quickly, and also that a sweatshop will hopefully be either reformed or shut down.

 

I am sorry to see you go. It's really a shame there's no one wiling to defend these perspectives with stats or research or articles of any kind.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

Perhaps some of you should do a bit of research into why conditions are so poor in those countries that families are fleeing (using credible sources).  The US is culpable in a major way through foreign policy travesty after travesty designed to make life better for US at the expense of everyone else.  For a bunch of autodidacts and persons teaching history to our own children we sure are an uneducated bunch, no?  This is ultimately OUR fault.  To think we should take the fruits of our decades of labor and blame it on the victims WE CREATED is just inexcusable.  Do your homework, and stop pretending to have superior moral and family values defined by your compassionate religious icon.  You know who you are.

Thank you for saying this. We have blood on our hands, and we're adding more.

And should we put together a book list?  Here is a start:

The Last Colonial Massacre

Bitter Fruit

The Killing Zone

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Janeway said:

I am okay with prices going up because workers are paid a fair wage. And I grew up on farm land and knew people working in these plants. The same excuses for bringing in illegals, skipping out on taxes (the companies skip out on a lot of taxes when they are hiding employees), under paying and mistreating the illegals, were used for why we needed to keep slavery. And it is not ok.

 

Would you please use another word besides "illegals"? It's dehumanizing and it really bothers me. It's akin to hearing "Retards" or the N word. 😥

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

To be fair, the proposed suspension of the program is because the system as it currently stands is struggling to absorb the massive volume increase.  It isn’t happening in a vacuum.  

I’m of the unpopular opinion that stands for a complete shut down of refugee and legal immigration pending a review and overhaul of the existing system and assimilating all those already here, then reopening the process with broadening legal immigration and visas.   But until the current people are helped, including American citizens who cannot access basic resources THEY need for their survival, it’s a tough pill for much of the public to swallow.  I’m pretty pro-immigration but the current situation is unsustainable and fixing it in media res isn’t working well at all, and hasn’t for the past four presidents.  

It’s not as much of a partisan issue as the current media climate seems to cast it.  But alas, calm discussion of solutions doesn’t sell papers or ad spots.

Flame away, I suppose.

 

What does assimilation mean to you? Did the Italians, Irish, Brits, etc. sufficiently assimilate and how long did it take to meet your expectations?  It seems to me, immigration in the US always follows a similar pattern. Everyone is demonized...until they're so ubiquitous that they're not.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Yes, if they enter or do so via a legal port of entry (according to US law).

 

Nope, not true. You can apply for asylum within one year of arriving in the US no matter how you entered the country.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Yes, if they enter or do so via a legal port of entry (according to US law).

According to the INA, they have a right to claim asylum within a certain timeframe, no matter how or where they entered the US.  The current administration has tried to change policy to limit asylum seekers’ rights, but neither US nor international law has changed, and fortunately US courts have generally been upholding the provisions in the INA.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Yes, if they enter or do so via a legal port of entry (according to US law).


No, this is not true.  They can be in the country and apply within one year of arriving, regardless. There was an interim rule put in by this administration that it must be at a port of entry, but it was invalidated by the courts because it breaks asylum law.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

Perhaps some of you should do a bit of research into why conditions are so poor in those countries that families are fleeing (using credible sources).  The US is culpable in a major way through foreign policy travesty after travesty designed to make life better for US at the expense of everyone else.  For a bunch of autodidacts and persons teaching history to our own children we sure are an uneducated bunch, no?  This is ultimately OUR fault.  To think we should take the fruits of our decades of labor and blame it on the victims WE CREATED is just inexcusable.  Do your homework, and stop pretending to have superior moral and family values defined by your compassionate religious icon.  You know who you are.

Don't even start me on what we did in the 80's in Nicaragua. U.n.b.e.l.i.e.v.a.b.l.e.

My mother in law did Doctors Without Borders medical work in Nicaragua for a few years after she retired from teaching nursing school. She has things to say about US policy. These are not kind words.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TechWife said:


I think you have summed it up. You can't see.

Detention is not the best scenario, either. Living safely in a country of plenty is. Detention is not the goal of these parents. Living safely in a country of plenty is. Detention is not the goal. Having a place to work, food to eat, freedom from gang life is. Detention is not the goal. Access to food, clothing, education, and life, is the goal.

But unless you're advocating for open borders, how does this work out logistically? You're saying I lack imagination about this, okay. I do. I admit, I cannot figure out how we handle six figures of immigrants annually who are trying to cross the border in places where there are no ports of entry, with no paperwork, after having paid literal human traffickers to get them there, without some sort of hold up and vetting process. I get that people here are saying trafficking of minors or sex trafficking of women isn't an issue; I disagree, but let's say for the sake of argument that isn't an issue at all and we don't have to worry about family relationships or who is bringing in whom under what auspices. What are your ideas on making this happen where I am lacking imagination? I have had multiple background checks done on myself where I have provided multiple forms of ID, references, and personal history. It still took weeks to get the results back and not because of lack of funding of who was doing the work. The work itself takes time. I admit to not understanding how we could possibly just "staff up" on lawyers, judges and LEOs to make it go faster, given that people often arrive with none of those documents at their disposal. Further, if there is a concerted effort in this country to abolish or demonize agencies where this work is done (ICE, CBP, immigration courts), how do we fund the billions and billions of dollars this would required?

I am willing to listen to what people are proposing we actually do with the people arriving at our border that need all of this done before they can enter.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

To be fair, the proposed suspension of the program is because the system as it currently stands is struggling to absorb the massive volume increase.  It isn’t happening in a vacuum.  

I’m of the unpopular opinion that stands for a complete shut down of refugee and legal immigration pending a review and overhaul of the existing system and assimilating all those already here, then reopening the process with broadening legal immigration and visas.   But until the current people are helped, including American citizens who cannot access basic resources THEY need for their survival, it’s a tough pill for much of the public to swallow.  I’m pretty pro-immigration but the current situation is unsustainable and fixing it in media res isn’t working well at all, and hasn’t for the past four presidents.  

It’s not as much of a partisan issue as the current media climate seems to cast it.  But alas, calm discussion of solutions doesn’t sell papers or ad spots.

Flame away, I suppose.

There are 70 million displaced people in the world right now.  The majority of them are being hosted by some of the poorest countries in the world. What in the world are countries like Uganda, Kenya, and Egypt supposed to do with the millions of South Sudanese refugees living in within their borders, with more coming every day?  What if Bangladesh decides to kick out all of the Rohinhya living there?  What about Turkey and its 2 million Syrian refugees?   Seriously, for those who want to shut down legal entry into the US, what are people who have nowhere to go supposed to do?  How can we expect anyone else to continue to be part of the international conventions and protocols regarding refugees and asylum seekers if we refuse to participate?  And without those agreements, what in the world will refugees and asylum seekers do?

I get that the situation isn’t ideal.  But what else can we possibly do?  I mean this question seriously.  If the US, the country with the most ability in the world to take in refugees and asylum seekers, refuses to do it, what recourse will refugees and asylum seekers have? 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Yes, you're right. It takes money to change things. This country has a lot of that.

And we'd have even more--lots more--if we stopped the greedy, immoral invasions that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It's shameful.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HomeAgain said:


No, this is not true.  They can be in the country and apply within one year of arriving, regardless. There was an interim rule put in by this administration that it must be at a port of entry, but it was invalidated by the courts because it breaks asylum law.

Can you give me a cite for this? My understanding was that one could not enter the US to claim asylum without coming through a legal point of entry (IOW you can't just cross through the desert and then later claim asylum), nor could they work here or live here without some kind of documentation (passport, visa, etc.). My understanding was also that one's claim of asylum (in the US) had to be based on persecution from their own government based on race, religion, and some other categories. I admit, I last read up on all this a couple months ago, so I'm sure I've mixed some things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MercyA said:

And we'd have even more--lots more--if we stopped the greedy, immoral invasions that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It's shameful.

And supporting other countries who continue to create situations where people must flee.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MercyA said:

And we'd have even more--lots more--if we stopped the greedy, immoral invasions that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. It's shameful.

Here here. And pork barrel spending......

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/congress-opened-the-floodgates-on-pork-barrel-spending-in-2018

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/14/10-Most-Outrageous-Pork-Barrel-Projects-2016

https://www.taxpayer.net/budget-appropriations-tax/pork-barrel-spending-grows/

Chances are that I may have become too political with this post since these articles do not pull punches. But, we'll see if it stands. If so, it's a window into where our money goes. And to be honest, as stated, I don't have problems with medical research, but why the heck are the programs cited being funneled to the Pentagon instead of to the National Institutes of Health? Seriously, wouldn't they be the more qualified department to decide what researchers get what grants????

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EmseB said:

Can you give me a cite for this? My understanding was that one could not enter the US to claim asylum without coming through a legal point of entry (IOW you can't just cross through the desert and then later claim asylum), nor could they work here or live here without some kind of documentation (passport, visa, etc.). My understanding was also that one's claim of asylum (in the US) had to be based on persecution from their own government based on race, religion, and some other categories. I admit, I last read up on all this a couple months ago, so I'm sure I've mixed some things up.

Here’s the INA. The one-year provision is near the top.  https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim

Asylum claims have to be adjudicated.  People are allowed to continue their claim if they pass a credible fear test, which most do in the past, although I haven’t seen recent numbers from the last few months to know if that has changed.  But it is true that most people’s asylum claim is denied in the end.

It’s important for people to be able to claim asylum even if their original entry was undocumented.  We need to make sure we’re not sending people to dangerous situations.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Amira said:

And supporting other countries who continue to create situations where people must flee.

Except the long term solution IS supporting people where they are at instead of displacing them.  Literacy, economic stability, a more robust supply chain - that lifts more people out of poverty than migration, historically.  There are always despots and persecution of minority ethnic and religious groups, which is where I think there is a place for refugee policy.  But broad economic issues or crime seem best managed on the ground.  Each country is unique, but I do support aid policies that incentivize improvements in a country’s management and not propping up their dictators. 

I’m more of a globalist than isolationist, though.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Except the long term solution IS supporting people where they are at instead of displacing them.  Literacy, economic stability, a more robust supply chain - that lifts more people out of poverty than migration, historically.  There are always despots and persecution of minority ethnic and religious groups, which is where I think there is a place for refugee policy.  But broad economic issues or crime seem best managed on the ground.  Each country is unique, but I do support aid policies that incentivize improvements in a country’s management and not propping up their dictators. 

I’m more of a globalist than isolationist, though.

Well, yeah, the long term solution is stabilizing countries that we have de-stablized but funding is being cut for that too. Propping up dictators has been our official policy toward many, many countries.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Except the long term solution IS supporting people where they are at instead of displacing them.  Literacy, economic stability, a more robust supply chain - that lifts more people out of poverty than migration, historically.  There are always despots and persecution of minority ethnic and religious groups, which is where I think there is a place for refugee policy.  But broad economic issues or crime seem best managed on the ground.  Each country is unique, but I do support aid policies that incentivize improvements in a country’s management and not propping up their dictators. 

I’m more of a globalist than isolationist, though.


I think you and Amira are talking about different things.  Amira is talking about the fact that many of the reasons why people need to flee are created by governments that the U.S. government has propped up or helped.  Helping abusive regimes is not the same thing as supporting people where they are at.  

We have the resources to target this in more than one way.  We can figure out plans to safely and humanely address the needs of asylum seekers, while also investing our foreign aid, and building our trade policies in ways that support local economies.  We don't have to choose between those two things.    We can also add a third thing, which is refusing to support the establishment or continuation of the kinds of regimes I believe @Amira is talking about. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Well, yeah, the long term solution is stabilizing countries that we have de-stablized but funding is being cut for that too. Propping up dictators has been our official policy toward many, many countries.

It’s easier said than done though, unless we are literally being colonial about reforming governments and controlling their policy, and that has long term commitments or serious consequences, too.

What do you propose as a foreign policy alternative, that doesn’t defund the defense initiatives supporting NATO and the UN, our own homeland concerns, or unduly burden the currently hobbling American social safety net?

I have yet to see a solution that fixes these without significant trade offs.  What should those trade offs be and why?  Serious question. Because the discussions seems to come down to fundamental differences on that point, not that any of us lack compassion or logic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS -  away from the computer for the evening but I’ll catch up tomorrow.

Edited by Arctic Mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Except the long term solution IS supporting people where they are at instead of displacing them.  Literacy, economic stability, a more robust supply chain - that lifts more people out of poverty than migration, historically.  There are always despots and persecution of minority ethnic and religious groups, which is where I think there is a place for refugee policy.  But broad economic issues or crime seem best managed on the ground.  Each country is unique, but I do support aid policies that incentivize improvements in a country’s management and not propping up their dictators. 

I’m more of a globalist than isolationist, though.

But the 70 million displaced people I referenced above are not economic migrants.  They fall under UN protocols and conventions regarding people fleeing dangerous situations.  They literally have nowhere to go.  They’re in tenuous situations currently, their homes aren’t safe to return to, their children aren’t being educated, and resettlement has been stifled around the world.  This isn’t about money or migration, it’s about war and saving lives.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amira said:

There are 70 million displaced people in the world right now.  The majority of them are being hosted by some of the poorest countries in the world. What in the world are countries like Uganda, Kenya, and Egypt supposed to do with the millions of South Sudanese refugees living in within their borders, with more coming every day?  What if Bangladesh decides to kick out all of the Rohinhya living there?  What about Turkey and its 2 million Syrian refugees?  

They are being hosted there, but the situation is apples and oranges to what is happening at our borders. Those poorest countries aren't financing the upkeep and running of those camps, for the most part, and the conditions are not the same as here, and the circumstances of the actual refugees who are living in those places.

 

Just now, Amira said:

Here’s the INA. The one-year provision is near the top.  https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim

Asylum claims have to be adjudicated.  People are allowed to continue their claim if they pass a credible fear test, which most do in the past, although I haven’t seen recent numbers from the last few months to know if that has changed.  But it is true that most people’s asylum claim is denied in the end.

It’s important for people to be able to claim asylum even if their original entry was undocumented.  We need to make sure we’re not sending people to dangerous situations.

Except doing so is creating the crisis at the border where more and more lives are being put at risk because of the actual way they are entering this country. It is unsafe for children especially, but even adults are dying trying to make this trek. Also, it seems your link says there is a requirement to be screened and inspected by immigration officials in order to apply for admission, even via asylum. "All applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers." I'm not sure how they have a credible fear test if they aren't willing to enter at a place where there are immigration officers and administration to adjudicate their claims.

Also, if someone decides to enter illegally in order to claim asylum, they've complicated their situation by violating 8 USC 1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325. So it makes it that much more difficult for them to be vetted, their claims verified, etc., without detention precisely because they've already broken US law and by law are detained. How should that be handled if they are coming here for asylum? Even if I agree that the law should be changed and people shouldn't be detained, that's the law as it stands now. I would be detained if I entered any country without documentation, especially if it was discovered I did not enter through a legal border crossing. Refugees entering into the camps you speak of above come into those places via a legal point of entry and have to verify their status as refugees (for really good reasons having to do with the safety and security of people already there!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

It’s easier said than done though, unless we are literally being colonial about reforming governments and controlling their policy, and that has long term commitments or serious consequences, too.

What do you propose as a foreign policy alternative, that doesn’t defund the defense initiatives supporting NATO and the UN, our own homeland concerns, or unduly burden the currently hobbling American social safety net?

I have yet to see a solution that fixes these without significant trade offs.  What should those trade offs be and why?  Serious question. Because the discussions seems to come down to fundamental differences on that point, not that any of us lack compassion or logic.

 

I don't believe there is a solution without trade-offs. Being colonial meant propping up dictators that suited our interests. The opposite of that is allowing countries to self-govern, help grow their military and civilian defense force (police) capacity, and economy. I'm not (nor do i pretend to be) a foreign policy expert but I trust those who are. Withdrawing funding for that type of work certainly won't help matters. Pay with your time or money now, or later. The chickens always come home.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EmseB said:

They are being hosted there, but the situation is apples and oranges to what is happening at our borders. Those poorest countries aren't financing the upkeep and running of those camps, for the most part, and the conditions are not the same as here, and the circumstances of the actual refugees who are living in those places.

Except doing so is creating the crisis at the border where more and more lives are being put at risk because of the actual way they are entering this country. It is unsafe for children especially, but even adults are dying trying to make this trek. Also, it seems your link says there is a requirement to be screened and inspected by immigration officials in order to apply for admission, even via asylum. "All applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers." I'm not sure how they have a credible fear test if they aren't willing to enter at a place where there are immigration officers and administration to adjudicate their claims.

Also, if someone decides to enter illegally in order to claim asylum, they've complicated their situation by violating 8 USC 1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325. So it makes it that much more difficult for them to be vetted, their claims verified, etc., without detention precisely because they've already broken US law and by law are detained. How should that be handled if they are coming here for asylum? Even if I agree that the law should be changed and people shouldn't be detained, that's the law as it stands now. I would be detained if I entered any country without documentation, especially if it was discovered I did not enter through a legal border crossing. Refugees entering into the camps you speak of above come into those places via a legal point of entry and have to verify their status as refugees (for really good reasons having to do with the safety and security of people already there!).

 

What is your evidence of this? The reports we've seen of our own conditions are of people in cages, with no heat or sanitation let alone room to sleep lying down. How can you say conditions in other refugee camps are better/worse? Have you been there? Seen reports?

If you had a credible fear for your life and the only (legal) place to wait for adjudication was rife with drug traffickers would you stay put or cross where you could and take your chances? NM, you said you'd happily endure such conditions to preserve your scruples. People can be screened anywhere within the US. It needn't be at the border. We needn't require  or insist on a max. 100 persons/families a day, for ex.

Again, as others have asked...what would *you* have an asylum seeker do if they were credibly in fear?

 

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I don't believe there is no solution without trade-offs. Being colonial meant propping up dictators that suited our interests. The opposite of that is allowing countries to self-govern, help grow their military and civilian defense force (police) capacity, and economy. I'm not (nor do i pretend to be) a foreign policy expert but I trust those who are. Withdrawing funding for that type of work certainly won't help matters. Pay with your time or money now, or later. The chickens always come home.

 

Just saw this and I haven’t left yet.

But which ones do you trust?  Trump’s? Obama’s? Again; there are major schools of thought on how to best manage global situations and suppress violence or prop up economic growth, with different reasons and methods.  The goal is always keeping America in a stable and safe position while doing so, though.  I don’t believe either side of the political aisle intends to hurt their country’s safety or prosperity (or damage other countries) in trying to answer these questions but the fact remains that it happens and has happened, historically, during presidencies from both parties.

Do you spend money here and take in refugees instead of help fix their homes?  

How many is enough?  Where do you draw those lines?  

And if we are making bad foreign policy decisions (which were decided by experts), which experts and their philosophies come up with a better outcome?  

How much responsibility does a first world country take for the rest of the world and why?  Where is the line drawn on aid or intervention or naturalization? Why?

Edited by Arctic Mama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EmseB said:

They are being hosted there, but the situation is apples and oranges to what is happening at our borders. Those poorest countries aren't financing the upkeep and running of those camps, for the most part, and the conditions are not the same as here, and the circumstances of the actual refugees who are living in those places.

 

Except doing so is creating the crisis at the border where more and more lives are being put at risk because of the actual way they are entering this country. It is unsafe for children especially, but even adults are dying trying to make this trek. Also, it seems your link says there is a requirement to be screened and inspected by immigration officials in order to apply for admission, even via asylum. "All applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers." I'm not sure how they have a credible fear test if they aren't willing to enter at a place where there are immigration officers and administration to adjudicate their claims.

Also, if someone decides to enter illegally in order to claim asylum, they've complicated their situation by violating 8 USC 1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325. So it makes it that much more difficult for them to be vetted, their claims verified, etc., without detention precisely because they've already broken US law and by law are detained. How should that be handled if they are coming here for asylum? Even if I agree that the law should be changed and people shouldn't be detained, that's the law as it stands now. I would be detained if I entered any country without documentation, especially if it was discovered I did not enter through a legal border crossing. Refugees entering into the camps you speak of above come into those places via a legal point of entry and have to verify their status as refugees (for really good reasons having to do with the safety and security of people already there!).

Some refugees are in camps, but many aren’t, nor are many asylum seekers.  The refugees and asylum seekers I know personally have to find local jobs, find local apartments, and find ways to survive.  There aren’t camps in Turkey or Lebanon.  Uganda does a great deal for its refugees and they’re not in camps. I could go on. It’s actually not as different from the US as you might think, especially for asylum seekers.  But still, children aren’t being separated from their parents as a policy, except in the US.

It’s certainly true that an undocumented entry complicates an asylum case.  But it doesn’t change that a person has a legal right to claim asylum, which is what my point was above.

Refugees certainly aren’t all entering countries at legal entry points.  They get out of their home country however they can.  We can’t expect people to flee in an orderly manner.  You just get out, and international law provides for that.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EmseB said:

They are being hosted there, but the situation is apples and oranges to what is happening at our borders. Those poorest countries aren't financing the upkeep and running of those camps, for the most part, and the conditions are not the same as here, and the circumstances of the actual refugees who are living in those places.

 

Except doing so is creating the crisis at the border where more and more lives are being put at risk because of the actual way they are entering this country. It is unsafe for children especially, but even adults are dying trying to make this trek. Also, it seems your link says there is a requirement to be screened and inspected by immigration officials in order to apply for admission, even via asylum. "All applicants for admission or otherwise seeking admission or readmission to or transit through the United States shall be inspected by immigration officers." I'm not sure how they have a credible fear test if they aren't willing to enter at a place where there are immigration officers and administration to adjudicate their claims.

Also, if someone decides to enter illegally in order to claim asylum, they've complicated their situation by violating 8 USC 1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325. So it makes it that much more difficult for them to be vetted, their claims verified, etc., without detention precisely because they've already broken US law and by law are detained. How should that be handled if they are coming here for asylum? Even if I agree that the law should be changed and people shouldn't be detained, that's the law as it stands now. I would be detained if I entered any country without documentation, especially if it was discovered I did not enter through a legal border crossing. Refugees entering into the camps you speak of above come into those places via a legal point of entry and have to verify their status as refugees (for really good reasons having to do with the safety and security of people already there!).

I'm reminded here of the first episode of the West Wing. Immigrants from Cuba capsizing off the shore of Florida and one of the new admin jokes they should call the cops.  The rest stare at him and he laughs it off and gets in with a plan to send them blankets, humanitarian aid, medical to greet them on the shore.

People have come through any means possible to seek asylum.  They are being denied more now because of the administration policies, not because they have a misdemeanor crossing the border.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

 

Just saw this and I haven’t left yet.

But which ones do you trust?  Trump’s? Obama’s? Again; there are major schools of thought on how to best manage global situations and suppress violence or prop up economic growth, with different reasons and methods.  The goal is always keeping America in a stable and safe position while doing so, though.  

Do you spend money here and take in refugees instead of help fix their homes?  

How many is enough?  Where do you draw those lines?  

And if we are making bad foreign policy decisions (which were decided by experts), which experts and their philosophies come up with a better outcome?  

How much responsibility does a first world country take for the rest of the world and why?  Where is the line drawn on aid or intervention or naturalization? Why?

 

Dear Lord, how is that even a question? Anyone with even straw for brains has already left the former. There's really not a lot of daylight between conventional foreign policy experts of any major party. Those serving in senior positions now are definitely on the fringes...and they keep losing in court so there's that. We can walk ad chew gum at the same time tho. I see that as a basic truism. It shouldn't be either we prop up governments OR we take in refugees. This is America for Pete's sake. We can and should do both. I can't put $$$ figures to that but, I would ask, how much is the current divisive rhetoric and policy costing us both now and into the future? There's no doubt in my mind that the next Mao is an infant.

In foreign policy, just like domestic volunteerism, those who have the least often do the most.  This is a big, mostly empty, country. Especially in the middle. We have plenty of room to grow.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Amira said:

But the 70 million displaced people I referenced above are not economic migrants.  They fall under UN protocols and conventions regarding people fleeing dangerous situations.  They literally have nowhere to go.  They’re in tenuous situations currently, their homes aren’t safe to return to, their children aren’t being educated, and resettlement has been stifled around the world.  This isn’t about money or migration, it’s about war and saving lives.

 

Fascism is often the outcome. The refugees are scape goated for all of the growing problems in those countries due to the financial strain, so eventually they become hated, and then they become targeted. Ask the Yemeni refugees what is happening to them in Egypt now. Not pretty. Really, there isn't anywhere for Yemeni refugees to go anymore. Children are starving to death in droves, literally millions, diptheria is on the rise as are a number of other childhood diseases and vaccination programs have long ceased functioning so it only becomes a matter of time before desperate folks take those diseases to the shores of other countries, and if those nations have low vaccination rates......you can see where that is going.

It is amazing to me the amount of global hatred that gets leveled at refugees, but NOT at the evil masterminds causing the refugee crisis to begin with. It's hard for me to grasp. I'm more of the "Off to the Hague" kind of person. Round up these scum bags - and I'd be happy to see British Naval, US Seals, and Danish Frogmen, tasked with capturing these slimes and seeing them tried for crimes against humanity, or if necessary, simply taking them out if they refuse to surrender or can't be captured. But instead, all of the anger is leveled at the refugees themselves. I am very worried for our world!

It's happening in so many places. My sister reports a lot of refugee hatred in France.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EmseB said:

But unless you're advocating for open borders, how does this work out logistically? You're saying I lack imagination about this, okay. I do. I admit, I cannot figure out how we handle six figures of immigrants annually who are trying to cross the border in places where there are no ports of entry, with no paperwork, after having paid literal human traffickers to get them there, without some sort of hold up and vetting process. I get that people here are saying trafficking of minors or sex trafficking of women isn't an issue; I disagree, but let's say for the sake of argument that isn't an issue at all and we don't have to worry about family relationships or who is bringing in whom under what auspices. What are your ideas on making this happen where I am lacking imagination? I have had multiple background checks done on myself where I have provided multiple forms of ID, references, and personal history. It still took weeks to get the results back and not because of lack of funding of who was doing the work. The work itself takes time. I admit to not understanding how we could possibly just "staff up" on lawyers, judges and LEOs to make it go faster, given that people often arrive with none of those documents at their disposal. Further, if there is a concerted effort in this country to abolish or demonize agencies where this work is done (ICE, CBP, immigration courts), how do we fund the billions and billions of dollars this would required?

I am willing to listen to what people are proposing we actually do with the people arriving at our border that need all of this done before they can enter.

 

 

1 - Make it logistically possible for them to cross the border at a port of entry. This can be done in several ways. First, increase the number of ports of entry. Second, increase the capacity at all ports of entry. Third, realize that the purpose of the ports of entry is to control who  enters the country. It's purpose is for entry. Fourth, increase the number of people we are willing to accept into our country.

2- Streamline the vetting process. How can this be done? Here are some basic ideas. First, improve communication. When it is known that large numbers are moving towards the US (a caravan, for example), reach out to the people in the caravan and explain the process and explain any documentation that they are required to have. Communicate in the primary language of the people entering the country. Work with people before they get here.

3 - Streamline the process of background checks. It takes time because it takes people. People require money. Money solves a lot of problems. Change spending priorities so that we can treat people like the human beings they are. Purchase computerized systems that work faster. Hire people who can maintain those systems. Create needed software. Ask other nations to cooperate in different ways than they are now, if possible. Provide them with resources they need to do so.

4 - For people who arrive with no documents at their disposal - it must first be determined why they have no documents. Is it because of the hideous conditions in their home country? How can we provide assistance to people so that they can get the required documents? We must think through what a reasonable amount of time would be to keep someone waiting for documents that may never arrive. Then, what do we do? Do we send people back to a war torn country? Can we provide some alternate ways of having them prove their identity? What documents do we require now? Do we really need all that we require? Can people reasonably be expected to have them on hand in the circumstances under which they were living? Are there alternate documents that we could use to confirm identity, such as baptismal certificates, family Bibles, or anything else available from the culture in which they live? Be creative. Look for ways to help people. The more things we decide in advance (such as alternate ID's) the more smoothly the process will work.

5 - Funding comes from tax dollars. Yours, mine, corporations and the infamous 1%. There may be other things that don't get done. It's a trade off. In order to decide what kind of trade offs we need to make, we need to decide what kind of people we are and what kind of country we want to be.

6 - Improve rules, policies and procedures under which CBP and ICE operate so that they are expected to act in a humane manner.  Improve their working conditions. Set a zero tolerance policy for abuse of power. Increase staffing.

7 - Prioritize. I can't begin to guess how much money was spent on the raids that took place yesterday. Was that the best use of limited funds? Were there other areas of the immigration system that needed more attention, more funds, more personnel resources? What was the goal? Did the raids meet that goal? Were there other ways that could meet the same goal (such as going in and arresting the employers, then having an orderly way to evaluate the immigration status of the employees? I don't know the answer to those questions off the top of my head. But, when people refer to laws that aren't enforced, what they need to acknowledge is that if we fail to allocate adequate resources (yes, money, taxes), we aren't going to be able to enforce all of the laws. The result is that we must prioritize. Who is in the greatest amount of danger? Who is committing the greatest offense? Who is endangering others?

8 - Hold those who are responsible for making laws accountable. People have been talking about the need for immigration reform my entire adult life. That's a long time. No significant reforms have taken place. Stop electing people to Congress who refuse to do their job. There are dozens of bills that are stalled right now because people are refusing to address the problem. Learn to compromise, not everyone is going to get everything they want.

9 - Pay attention to "experts." There are people who have a thorough understanding of child development, sociology, history and many other disciplines that can provide input on the effects of proposed laws and rules and whether or not they are likely to achieve the desired goals and whether or not they can be enacted in a humane manner. Listen, learn, act.

10 - Stop using human beings as pawns in an attempt to gain political favor. This is not a game. The people seeking entry into our country are people, just like you and me.

ETA: All of this is just off of the top of my head. If I can come up with this, then I'm sure that people who actually work with refugees and asylum seekers would have even more ideas, and probably more specific ones.

 

Edited by TechWife
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, EmseB said:

Can you give me a cite for this? My understanding was that one could not enter the US to claim asylum without coming through a legal point of entry (IOW you can't just cross through the desert and then later claim asylum), nor could they work here or live here without some kind of documentation (passport, visa, etc.). My understanding was also that one's claim of asylum (in the US) had to be based on persecution from their own government based on race, religion, and some other categories. I admit, I last read up on all this a couple months ago, so I'm sure I've mixed some things up.

I gave you one upthread.

You are wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Except the long term solution IS supporting people where they are at instead of displacing them.  Literacy, economic stability, a more robust supply chain - that lifts more people out of poverty than migration, historically.  There are always despots and persecution of minority ethnic and religious groups, which is where I think there is a place for refugee policy.  But broad economic issues or crime seem best managed on the ground.  Each country is unique, but I do support aid policies that incentivize improvements in a country’s management and not propping up their dictators. 

I’m more of a globalist than isolationist, though.

 

It's more important that we not keep interfering in other countries and causing these problems in the first place.

Edited by TechWife
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

PS -  away from the computer for the evening but I’ll catch up tomorrow.

Arctic, you are asking a lot of good questions. The only thing I disagree with is "both sides of the aisle" and "intent to damage". Uhm. Nope. There has absolutely been willful intent to damage, and that is driven by corporate lobbyists because many policies have profit motive at their base. Lots of looting and pillaging of natural resources and economies for profit, and leaving the country bare which of course leads to humanitarian crisis.

As for who do we listen to? That's a tough one. I think one thing though is that the ones that keep proposing things that history has taught us do not work, are ones that should be told to go talk someplace else. Another good idea would be to be less isolationist in terms of foreign policy, and more open to input globally, and from NGO's on the ground. DOB and others do have a pretty good bead on the who and what is behind a lot of this in the areas they serve. Listen to the NGO's, listen to our ex pats living and working in these places, listen to our ambassadors. A surprising number of ambassadors are just entirely dismissed. They are expected to be puppets of the State Department, but not to develop meaningful policy recommendations despite the fact they often learn so much about these nations while living there. 

Here is just one story that gives a glimpse into this kind of thing. https://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/dp/030740885X

I read it. It will make you sick to your stomach. This US diplomat begged for intervention, accurately predicted what Hitler was and what he and his regime would do, and if any Western Europe, if the US government, had been willing to listen instead of have their "not my circus, not my monkeys" attitude until all of sudden Hitler became everyone's nightmare, millions of people would not have died.

It's not the solution. It would be a beginning of finding the solutions. And there won't be a one side fits all, nor will it be a single solution. It will be a zillion smaller, righteous decisions one at a time made by people brave enough to start listening to people on the ground who actually know things, instead of think tanks and lobbyists whose agendas rarely have anything to do with having moral courage, care, or compassion.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

It is amazing to me the amount of global hatred that gets leveled at refugees, but NOT at the evil masterminds causing the refugee crisis to begin with. It's hard for me to grasp.

 

It's hard for me to grasp too.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I don't believe there is a solution without trade-offs. Being colonial meant propping up dictators that suited our interests. The opposite of that is allowing countries to self-govern, help grow their military and civilian defense force (police) capacity, and economy. I'm not (nor do i pretend to be) a foreign policy expert but I trust those who are. Withdrawing funding for that type of work certainly won't help matters. Pay with your time or money now, or later. The chickens always come home.

Trade offs are a part of life. It's laughable to think that we can do anything helpful without trade offs.

What we have lost is a sense of the common good - aka "general welfare." Generally speaking, our culture in the US is built around individualism and a "what's in it for me" mentality. The truth is, sometimes doing the right thing doesn't bring personal advantage and sometimes it can be painful (paying more taxes, less money for other things, for example). But we don't want to make ourselves toooo uncomfortable in order to make someone else's life bearable. We have our selfish limits.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Trade offs are a part of life. It's laughable to think that we can do anything helpful without trade offs.

What we have lost is a sense of the common good - aka "general welfare." Generally speaking, our culture in the US is built around individualism and a "what's in it for me" mentality. The truth is, sometimes doing the right thing doesn't bring personal advantage and sometimes it can be painful (paying more taxes, less money for other things, for example). But we don't want to make ourselves toooo uncomfortable in order to make someone else's life bearable. We have our selfish limits.

Yes this.

I have relatives totally against any kind of healthcare access solution so long as their health care access is just fine. They seriously don't give a crap about the guy locally who died of readily treatable cancer because the hospital would not treat him long term unless he had health insurance, and he made $59 too much to get medicaid. When he was finally, utterly unable to work and lost his job, then he qualified for medicaid, but by then it was too late and readily treatable cancer turned into "you have three months to live" cancer. What the hell? But ya, my brother is fine with it so long as HE has medical insurance.

There is too much of this mentality, this "as long as my family is fine, I don't give a rat's rear about anyone else" kind of thinking. It is also a reason that I don't think that environmental issues get taken care of because so long as "my water isn't poisoning me" or whatever, then don't spend any money to clean up anyone else's water supply. I have heard this sentiment more than I like to admit right here in Mid Michigan concerning the Flint and Detroit water supplies. And now those chickens are coming home to roost, because the water at the county seat locally has been found to be unfreakingbelievably high in arsenic and some other nasty toxins. The hospital may have to close if it can't afford it's own treatment plant because the county doesn't have the money to do anything about it. Now all of a sudden the "sucks to be you" people are pretty damn upset that the state isn't sending gobs of money here to clean it up, improve the water system, and save the hospital. There is a great weeping and gnashing of teeth.

As they say, "Karma is a b&tch". And "they" are not wrong!

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 

7 - Prioritize. I can't begin to guess how much money was spent on the raids that took place yesterday. Was that the best use of limited funds? Were there other areas of the immigration system that needed more attention, more funds, more personnel resources? What was the goal? Did the raids meet that goal? Were there other ways that could meet the same goal (such as going in and arresting the employers, then having an orderly way to evaluate the immigration status of the employees? I don't know the answer to those questions off the top of my head. But, when people refer to laws that aren't enforced, what they need to acknowledge is that if we fail to allocate adequate resources (yes, money, taxes), we aren't going to be able to enforce all of the laws. The result is that we must prioritize. Who is in the greatest amount of danger? Who is committing the greatest offense? Who is endangering others?

 

 

I just caught an interview on NPR All Things Considered on this very point. They had over 600 officers involved last night from ICE and homeland security rounding up people who have jobs and go to work every day. People who are part of a community not murderers gang members human traffickers. People who punch a time card and pay taxes and social security that they’ll never benefit from. This is not a responsible use of our tax dollars and security forces. Do the investigation. Arrest the employers and executives. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

What is your evidence of this? The reports we've seen of our own conditions are of people in cages, with no heat or sanitation let alone room to sleep lying down. How can you say conditions in other refugee camps are better/worse? Have you been there? Seen reports?

If you had a credible fear for your life and the only (legal) place to wait for adjudication was rife with drug traffickers would you stay put or cross where you could and take your chances? NM, you said you'd happily endure such conditions to preserve your scruples. People can be screened anywhere within the US. It needn't be at the border. We needn't require  or insist on a max. 100 persons/families a day, for ex.

Again, as others have asked...what would *you* have an asylum seeker do if they were credibly in fear?

 

I don't know what I would do in that situation. I would have to accept risk either way, but I'd probably try to go to an embassy to claim asylum. And please don't dismiss me as trying to  "preserve scruples" as if a) that's a bad thing, or b) my scruples are somehow trivial. I would avoid trafficking my family across the southern border illegally precisely to preserve my life, my children's lives, and to avoid the trauma and possible death or detention that it entails. I would not do it knowing I would be separated from my children and cause them pain. Those are the scruples I'm appealing to; my responsibility to my kids. Escaping war and genocide are entirely different.

As for the conditions in refugee camps, there are multiple sources of information on the conditions there. My conclusion after reading many articles and watching documentaries is that conditions at UN camps are worse. But ok, let's grant that our border detention facilities are worse or even comparable...yet another reason I would, at all costs, not go there or take my kids there unless facing genocide or war. But, if you're arguing that most of the people trying to enter the US illegally at the southern border are in the same situation as people in refugee camps in the places Amira mentioned, then I simply don't belive that to be a remotely genuine argument.

I do think one major point of contention here is that I simply don't believe all the people trying to get into the US are doing so out of situations that are as dire as life or death. I think they are seeking a better life here, no doubt. But not on the scale of escaping government persecution or genocide or anything like the firing squad metaphor you used previously. I would much rather the US admit more actual refugees from UNHRC camps in truly life and death situations than continue tacitly encouraging economically disadvantaged people to endanger their lives and the lives of their children in order to make money in veritable slave labor conditions in the US. As far as that goes, Congress needs to act to change laws, and that's really the only thing that can fix or reform any of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hshibley said:

I just caught an interview on NPR All Things Considered on this very point. They had over 600 officers involved last night from ICE and homeland security rounding up people who have jobs and go to work every day. People who are part of a community not murderers gang members human traffickers. People who punch a time card and pay taxes and social security that they’ll never benefit from. This is not a responsible use of our tax dollars and security forces. Do the investigation. Arrest the employers and executives. 

Right. Note that in this story, the billionaire CEO was NOT arrested.

https://thehill.com/latino/456566-immigration-agents-arrest-680-mississippi-food-processing-facilities

He needs to be sentenced to a couple of decades of hard labor while he forefeits his billions to the tax payers which we can then use to take care of people.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't know what I would do in that situation. I would have to accept risk either way, but I'd probably try to go to an embassy to claim asylum.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/10/raul-labrador/no-immigrants-cannot-apply-asylum-us-embassies-or-/

That's not an option. You have to apply for asylum at a US port of entry. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't know what I would do in that situation.

How can you judge someone, when you don't know what you'd do in the same situation? 

11 minutes ago, EmseB said:

 Escaping war and genocide are entirely different.

How is keeping your kids from dying at the hands of drug dealers or gangs entirely different from keeping your kids from dying in a war?  

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SKL said:

At the border, the vast majority of kids who are placed with foster families were not traveling with their families.  

 

This is not true — the US government has separated THOUSANDS of children who were traveling with their families. Last fall they admitted there were nearly 3,000 children in custody who had arrived WITH their parents and were forcefully separated, and they just recently admitted that thousands more had already been separated and released into foster care at that point and were not counted in the previous figures. They admit they will never really know the exact figures because they have no records and there is no way to reunite many of those children with their parents. These children were kidnapped from desperate parents by the US government, not "rescued from trafficking."

We have ripped toddlers and babies as young as FOUR MONTHS OLD away from parents. Traumatized toddlers have been put in cages with only older children to feed them and change their diapers. Toddlers have appeared at immigration hearings with no parent or legal representation, while horrified judges were forced to go through the formality of asking them questions they could not possibly understand, and issuing rulings. We have blackmailed grieving parents into giving up their asylum claims by threatening to permanently take away their children and put them up for adoption. We have tricked parents into boarding a plane for deportation by promising to bring their baby after they boarded, when there was never any intention of reuniting them.

This. is. not. defensible. This is disgusting, horrifying, utterly inhumane, and a violation of basic human rights.

 

1 hour ago, SKL said:

ICE rarely does more than process and release people who aren't committing crimes other than just being here illegally.  Usually they are not deported if they have not committed another crime; and those who are deported have a long time period between the time they were caught/released and the time they have to get on the plane and leave.

The above was true under the previous administration, but It is absolutely NOT true under the current administration. One of Trump's very first acts after taking office was signing an executive order "that expanded ICE's focus to most of the 11 million immigrants in the US illegally, regardless of whether they had a criminal record."

ICE is arresting and deporting people who have been here for decades and never committed any crime. They are arresting and deporting people with spouses and/or minor children who are US citizens. They are arresting and deporting people when they show up to renew work permits granted by previous administration to immigrants who had been here 5+ years and committed no crimes. The mother of a 5 year old child was deported and refused reentry when her child, a US citizen living with her US citizen husband, was diagnosed with cancer. The irony is that her husband voted for Trump, assuring his wife that she wasn't the "bad kind of immigrant" that would be deported. 

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 10
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I don't know what I would do in that situation. I would have to accept risk either way, but I'd probably try to go to an embassy to claim asylum.

I'm glad you are participating in this thread, because I think you have a lot of misconceptions about seeking asylum. For example, you cannot claim asylum in the US at an embassy. You must be physically in the country to do so. It's a nice idea, and it could be something we look into if we every get to a point where people are serious about improving the process, but right now it isn't possible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I gave you one upthread.

You are wrong.

So how does 8 USC 1325 apply, then? I read the cite. It doesn't seem to say you can just come in and declare asylum a la Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

But I'm kinda done. Because if you think there isn't millions of dollars already being thrown at contractors to "develop software" or "computerize" the background check issue and we can just somehow make it go faster with more money, we're at an impasse where neither of us are going to convince each other of anything. Honestly, most of what you're saying kind of makes sense and isn't controversial, but exists in this kind of utopia where if only we just spend more money and create more government systems everything will be great. I think we need more funding, yes, but I don't happen to agree that the reason people aren't entering at a POE is because there aren't enough of them.  I don't agree that people in the large caravans of migration just need to be educated and don't know what documentation would be required for expiditing the process. I disagree that money is the cure all to this, or even a band-aid. But more funding is sort of a problem when one side of the equation wants to abolish ICE entirely, radically defund and disable CBP, and boycotts companies who make beds for the people who are forced to sleep on floor mats because resources are so thin. There is some kind of gap there that can't be bridged.

Also anyone who disagrees with some ideas must want children to suffer or hates immigrants is the general vibe.

But I'll just say that my interest in this is that less children have to make that dangerous trek to the border with human traffickers, less children end up in facilities away from their detained parents who broke the law, less children have to live in fear that their parents will be picked up in a raid for breaking the law...less children traumatized and or dying on the way here. How we get there is debatable, but my interest is in keeping kids from being hurt. What I'm able to do currently to that end is small and monetary. Laws have to be changed, and ultimately the countries they are coming from have to fundamentally change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Sorry, I meant POE, somehow wrote embassy. Admittedly, my eyes are crossing a bit at this point, since I'm on my phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EmseB said:

So how does 8 USC 1325 apply, then? I read the cite. It doesn't seem to say you can just come in and declare asylum a la Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

But I'm kinda done. Because if you think there isn't millions of dollars already being thrown at contractors to "develop software" or "computerize" the background check issue and we can just somehow make it go faster with more money, we're at an impasse where neither of us are going to convince each other of anything. Honestly, most of what you're saying kind of makes sense and isn't controversial, but exists in this kind of utopia where if only we just spend more money and create more government systems everything will be great. I think we need more funding, yes, but I don't happen to agree that the reason people aren't entering at a POE is because there aren't enough of them.  I don't agree that people in the large caravans of migration just need to be educated and don't know what documentation would be required for expiditing the process. I disagree that money is the cure all to this, or even a band-aid. But more funding is sort of a problem when one side of the equation wants to abolish ICE entirely, radically defund and disable CBP, and boycotts companies who make beds for the people who are forced to sleep on floor mats because resources are so thin. There is some kind of gap there that can't be bridged.

Also anyone who disagrees with some ideas must want children to suffer or hates immigrants is the general vibe.

But I'll just say that my interest in this is that less children have to make that dangerous trek to the border with human traffickers, less children end up in facilities away from their detained parents who broke the law, less children have to live in fear that their parents will be picked up in a raid for breaking the law...less children traumatized and or dying on the way here. How we get there is debatable, but my interest is in keeping kids from being hurt. What I'm able to do currently to that end is small and monetary. Laws have to be changed, and ultimately the countries they are coming from have to fundamentally change.

 

Wow, I didn't say any of that. You asked for ideas, I gave ideas. I don't think anything will create utopia. I disagree that gaps can't be bridged. To believe that, I would have to believe that our system of government is entirely broken and I don't think that is true at this point in time. The biggest thing people who have different ideas need to do is compromise. But, I am under no illusion that compromising will create a utopia.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I'm glad you are participating in this thread, because I think you have a lot of misconceptions about seeking asylum. For example, you cannot claim asylum in the US at an embassy. You must be physically in the country to do so. It's a nice idea, and it could be something we look into if we every get to a point where people are serious about improving the process, but right now it isn't possible.

I will go back and edit my post. Embassy was a mistype, I meant POE, I was reading something tangentially related that mentioned embassies in another context. Sorry for the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...