General politics

[PseudoSABR]

 

Everybody who keeps claiming there are no "illegals" and that ALL such persons are instead "asylum seekers"...

 

Please STOP! That phrase is "factually incorrect" when used to refer to any non-citizen without a visa attempting to enter the United States from Mexico.

 

First off... asylum seekers attempting to enter the U.S. through Mexico are NOT granted asylum automatically and instantaneously. Second, such status as a "seeker" does NOT grant entry into the United States.

 

So sure enough, just as common sense would dictate, an unlimited number of people can't stream into the United States just by entering a single word.

 

Third, those who do receive asylum are meant to be granted it ONLY as protection from dangers like political persecution. The United States does not have an 'economic asylum' policy, meaning that a very high percentage of "asylum seekers" do not qualify for asylum.

 

It's a good discussion, particularly the quandary of helping those fleeing poverty by allowing them into the U.S. vs. helping their home countries improve economically.

 

But much like the situation itself, the discussion is not served in the least by ignoring our current laws.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but "illegals" has been used both to describe people who are seeking asylum, and those illegally crossing the border for work/trafficking etc.   The two are discrete problems.  But certainly there has been a lot more hubbub about the caravans and those coming from Central America, which seem to fall in the category of asylum seekers. (And to be fair, ewen has been jumping around in which group he's specifically talking about).

 

And of course they aren't granted asylum automatically, but we still have to ethically process their petitions and then deport them which both costs time and money, perhaps better directed at mitigating the underlying situation which makes them leave their homes in the first place.

[ewen21]

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but "illegals" has been used both to describe people who are seeking asylum, and those illegally crossing the border for work/trafficking etc.  

There aren't any illegals crossing the border?  When and others keep on insisting the term 'illegals" not be used it shows that you actually do disagree with what LaBombo said.  

 

Part of me wishes I wasn't on my way to sun and fun so I could continue this discussion properly.  All I will say for now if forget whatever you want to call them.  Acknowledge the crisis and stop assuming we can comfortably absorb all of them.  By doing that you just deny very real concerns

 

 

[LaBombo]

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but "illegals" has been used both to describe people who are seeking asylum, and those illegally crossing the border for work/trafficking etc.   The two are discrete problems.  But certainly there has been a lot more hubbub about the caravans and those coming from Central America, which seem to fall in the category of asylum seekers. (And to be fair, ewen has been jumping around in which group he's specifically talking about).

 

And of course they aren't granted asylum automatically, but we still have to ethically process their petitions and then deport them which both costs time and money, perhaps better directed at mitigating the underlying situation which makes them leave their homes in the first place.

 

Even Vox have admitted that caravan are made up mostly of people seeking entry into the U.S. for reasons other than those which currently qualify for asylum. Most cite economic reasons, and of the ones who fear (legitimately) for their lives, the fear stems from non-political violent crimes that are not a result of persecution by their nations' governments.

 

And again... status as an "asylum seeker" currently has NOTHING to do with crossing the border. Current U.S. law prohibits applicants from crossing, and caravan applicants are required to await approval in Mexico.

 

Ironically the one judge who attempted to overturn the policy did so from his Northern District federal bench... in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, whose mayor is openly horrified at the prospect of illegal crossers coming to his city.

 

As for processing asylum applications more expeditiously, that's all well and good but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's just speeding up the rejection of asylum status, putting the entire issue back at square one.

[ewen21]

 

Even Vox have admitted that caravan are almost entirely made up of people seeking entry into the U.S. for reasons other than those which currently qualify for asylum. Most cite economic reasons, and of the ones who fear (legitimately) for their lives, the fear stems from non-political violent crimes that are not a result of persecution by their nations' governments.

 

And again... status as an "asylum seeker" currently has NOTHING to do with crossing the border. Current U.S. law prohibits applicants from crossing, and caravan applicants are required to await approval in Mexico.

 

Ironically the one judge who attempted to overturn the policy did so from his Northern District federal bench... in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, whose mayor is openly horrified at the prospect of them coming to his city.

 

As for processing asylum applications more expeditiously, that's all well and good but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's just speeding up the rejection of asylum status, putting the process back at square one.

And Mexico is not happy about it.  Listen to the people speak.  These are Mexicans with no vested interested in boosting our case:

 

Asylum Seekers or not they are not doing it legally.  Hence, my use of the term "illegals"

I am sorry it offends people, but it's just a word.

[LaBombo]

 

And Mexico is not happy about it.  Listen to the people speak.  These are Mexicans with no vested interested in boosting our case:

 

Asylum Seekers or not they are not doing it legally.  Hence, my use of the term "illegals"

I am sorry it offends people, but it's just a word.

 

Thanks for posting; I didn't comment on the current policy but clearly it's forcing Mexico to act as buffer and holding area for the seekers in question, putting them at odds with both the immigrants and our government.

 

But as unfortunate as it is, it at least strips away the absurd notion that anti-Latino racism is the predominant underlying cause of concern about our inability to effectively manage immigration and border security.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Even Vox have admitted that caravan are made up mostly of people seeking entry into the U.S. for reasons other than those which currently qualify for asylum. Most cite economic reasons, and of the ones who fear (legitimately) for their lives, the fear stems from non-political violent crimes that are not a result of persecution by their nations' governments.

 

And again... status as an "asylum seeker" currently has NOTHING to do with crossing the border. Current U.S. law prohibits applicants from crossing, and caravan applicants are required to await approval in Mexico.

 

Ironically the one judge who attempted to overturn the policy did so from his Northern District federal bench... in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, whose mayor is openly horrified at the prospect of illegal crossers coming to his city.

 

As for processing asylum applications more expeditiously, that's all well and good but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's just speeding up the rejection of asylum status, putting the entire issue back at square one.

I'm not disputing that they won't qualify for asylum, but that doesn't speak of their motives.  In any case, I'm comfortable with calling them refugees.  And as far as dealing with the actual problem, perhaps our asylum policy should consider economic hardships that occur due to acts of the origin government.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Everybody who keeps claiming there are no "illegals" and that ALL such persons are instead "asylum seekers"...

 

Please STOP! That phrase is "factually incorrect" when used to refer to any non-citizen without a visa attempting to enter the United States from Mexico.

 

First off... asylum seekers attempting to enter the U.S. through Mexico are NOT granted asylum automatically and instantaneously. Second, such status as a "seeker" does NOT grant entry into the United States.

 

So sure enough, just as common sense would dictate, an unlimited number of people can't stream into the United States just by entering a single word.

 

Third, those who do receive asylum are meant to be granted it ONLY as protection from dangers like political persecution. The United States does not have an 'economic asylum' policy, meaning that a very high percentage of "asylum seekers" do not qualify for asylum.

 

No one said there are "no illegals".  What was incorrect was to lump them all in as illegals.  They are not.  The discussion is about these massive waves of people who are coming and, of those people, most of them are not illegals.   Clearly there is a distinction between people running over the border in the dead of night (illegals) and those walking up to border agents with children in broad daylight right?  Using the term illegals purposely muddies the water.  

 

So what would you have us call them so we don't have to quibble?  I'm assuming, since you are a rational person, you'd agree the vast majority of these people are not what we would call "illegals".  So by all means, tell me what term makes you comfortable and I'll use it.

 

What I won't concede is on the issue of continuing to use the word "illegals" in this context.  It's irrelevant this crisis and the vast majority of people in question.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Whatever Leviathan.  Stop it and stay on topic if you want to talk about this.

 

 YOu relish the opportunity to go back and forth.

 

Sure, with people who don't resort to stuff like your first line.  I enjoy going back and forth with people that can keep up without being petty or mischaracterizing.  

 

I, for the third time, implore you to up your game.  This post I quoted.....you can do better.  You can start with an apology or some self-reflection.  But tripe like this doesn't warrant a back and forth.  It warrants an eye roll.  And despite that, I'll still ignore most of what you posted and answer a meaningful question.  I do relish discussion, I wish you'd make a more honest effort to do so.  So here is me, ignoring the unfair stuff, and answering this question: Where do we place them?

 

I honestly don't know.  This situation sucks.  The Dems are hypocrites for celebrating sanctuary cities and then running from that trap Trump set.  But I don't know what to do with all these people.  I don't know how to improve the judicial process, I don't know where to house them, I don't know how to fix their broken countries.  

 

I haven't been critical of Trump or the Republicans on this.  This is decades of failed policy arriving on our doorstep and I'm not sure there is a good solution.

[LaBombo]

No one said there are "no illegals".  What was incorrect was to lump them all in as illegals.  They are not.  The discussion is about these massive waves of people who are coming and, of those people, most of them are not illegals.   Clearly there is a distinction between people running over the border in the dead of night (illegals) and those walking up to border agents with children in broad daylight right?  Using the term illegals purposely muddies the water.  

 

So what would you have us call them so we don't have to quibble?  I'm assuming, since you are a rational person, you'd agree the vast majority of these people are not what we would call "illegals".  So by all means, tell me what term makes you comfortable and I'll use it.

 

What I won't concede is on the issue of continuing to use the word "illegals" in this context.  It's irrelevant this crisis and the vast majority of people in question.

 

You're a rational person too, but I'm having difficulty following you here.

 

First: if you cross either U.S. border without permission, even as a U.S. citizen, you are breaking the law. Period. That's not a discussion.

 

Second: The "asylum seekers" being discussed when the objection to the term "illegals" was brought up were detainees who had illegally crossed before asylum was granted.

 

Third: with regard to asylum seekers and "illegals" being lumped together, I'm not the one doing the lumping. At all. The lumpers were attempting to incorrectly replace "illegals" with "asylum seekers".

 

Fourth: At no point have I commented on the validity of the term "illegals" as it applies to those who have, in fact, crossed the border illegally.

 

Fifth: Even if you (incorrectly) consider my not objecting to the term "illegals" to be functionally equivalent to endorsing it, it's still not incumbent on me to come up with alternative terminology, but rather on those who object to it. And "asylum seeker" ain't it, at least for anyone who crosses without approval.

 

Up to this point, my only input to the conversation has been an effort to stop the false differentiation of legal status between your "dead of night" crossings and those undertaken illegally by the "asylum seekers". 

 

I honestly don't know.This situation sucks.The Dems are hypocrites for celebrating sanctuary cities and then running from that trap Trump set.But I don't know what to do with all these people.I don't know how to improve the judicial process, I don't know where to house them, I don't know how to fix their broken countries. 

 

I haven't been critical of Trump or the Republicans on this.This is decades of failed policy arriving on our doorstep and I'm not sure there is a good solution.

Oddly enough, this sums up where I'm at with the issue(s) pretty well.

[ewen21]

LaBombo, you're second point MUST be acknowledged and conceded immediately by all those who insisted on the term "illegals" being "factually incorrect"

 

 

Sayonara until next week. This puppy is about to get off the ground

[Mike Sixel]

pages on whether to call them illegals......maybe we should suggest what to do.....

 

My first, and only so far, suggestion is to help the nations that are having issues decrease their issues, if they want help. But NOT by putting in a dictator.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

 
You're a rational person too, but I'm having difficulty following you here.
 
First: if you cross either U.S. border without permission, even as a U.S. citizen, you are breaking the law. Period. That's not a discussion.
 
Second: The "asylum seekers" being discussed when the objection to the term "illegals" was brought up were detainees who had illegally crossed before asylum was granted.
 
Third: with regard to asylum seekers and "illegals" being lumped together, I'm not the one doing the lumping. At all. The lumpers were attempting to incorrectly replace "illegals" with "asylum seekers".
 
Fourth: At no point have I commented on the validity of the term "illegals" as it applies to those who have, in fact, crossed the border illegally.
 
Fifth: Even if you (incorrectly) consider my not objecting to the term "illegals" to be functionally equivalent to endorsing it, it's still not incumbent on me to come up with alternative terminology, but rather on those who object to it. And "asylum seeker" ain't it, at least for anyone who crosses without approval.
 
Up to this point, my only input to the conversation has been an effort to stop the false differentiation of legal status between your "dead of night" crossings and those undertaken illegally by the "asylum seekers". 
 

Oddly enough, this sums up where I'm at with the issue(s) pretty well.

 

In our current political discourse, what do you think the term "illegals" is meant to infer?

 

I take issue with how ham-fisted you are treating this.  In our law there are many acts you can commit that can be lumped under one general category (manslaughter and murder are both "killing", burglary and petty theft are both stealing, etc) but we make differentiations for a reason.  I doubt I have to explain the reasoning....right?

 

So there IS a differentiation between those who walk up to border guards at check points and fence jumpers in the dead of night.  In my opinion, saying these are all "illegals" is purposefully non-constructive.  

 

The majority of people at our border are coming here through ports of entry.  That does not fit our general use of hte term "illegals".  It just doesn't.  I don't want to argue semantics, but words matter and that term feels non-constructive.

 

Wouldn't migrants be a better word?

[TheLeviathan]

Oh, and why do we differentiate?  Because how you fix the problem for fence-jumpers in the dead of night and massive caravans arriving at check points are VERY different.

[LaBombo]

 

In our current political discourse, what do you think the term "illegals" is meant to infer?

 

I take issue with how ham-fisted you are treating this.  In our law there are many acts you can commit that can be lumped under one general category (manslaughter and murder are both "killing", burglary and petty theft are both stealing, etc) but we make differentiations for a reason.  I doubt I have to explain the reasoning....right?

 

So there IS a differentiation between those who walk up to border guards at check points and fence jumpers in the dead of night.  In my opinion, saying these are all "illegals" is purposefully non-constructive.  

 

The majority of people at our border are coming here through ports of entry.  That does not fit our general use of hte term "illegals".  It just doesn't.  I don't want to argue semantics, but words matter and that term feels non-constructive.

 

Wouldn't migrants be a better word?

 

If we're going to continue (and I'm not optimistic), please acknowledge that

 

1. At no point have I advocated for the use of the term "illegals".

 

2. Asylum seekers are potential immigrants who arrive at the U.S. border to apply for asylum but have not yet been granted it. They are not allowed entry under current U.S. law, so of course they're not "illegals" while they're awaiting resolution of their status in Mexico. AT NO POINT HAVE I ATTEMPTED TO EQUATE THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITH PERSONS CROSSING ILLEGALLY!!! STOP SAYING THAT $#!^.

 

3. Once again... an "Asylum Seeker" who CROSSES THE BORDER is here illegally under current U.S. law. Applying the abused phrase "Asylum Seeker" to those who cross illegally serves no useful purpose that I'm aware of... or even that you've attempted to state, for that matter. And it does a huge disservice to those who are playing by the rules and waiting their turn outside our border.

 

4. Oh, F it. I'm not going to waste any more time breaking this down further until we're in agreement on those 3 things.

 

As I stated, our concerns and views are virtually the same. But if there's a terminology issue here it seems to me that it's yours, with all due respect.

 

[TheLeviathan]

As I stated, our concerns and views are virtually the same. But if there's a terminology issue here it seems to me that it's yours, with all due respect.

I have a problem with another person's use of the term. You interceded on their behalf and, for some reason, internalized those criticisms.

 

My point was, and remains, that using the term "illegals" as a broad term for this is inaccurate and misleading. We have a Central American migration crisis.

 

Nothing walls or all of the other typical "illegals" debates can do a thing about.

[LaBombo]

 

I have a problem with another person's use of the term. You interceded on their behalf and, for some reason, internalized those criticisms.

My point was, and remains, that using the term "illegals" as a broad term for this is inaccurate and misleading. We have a Central American migration crisis.

Nothing walls or all of the other typical "illegals" debates can do a thing about.

 

Well, actually I only pointed out a mistaken 'correction' of his post, but no matter; in the end it appears this is pretty much what I thought, which is a case of guilt by association.

 

So enough of that. Moving beyond the terminology debate, there's absolutely a crisis, and it doesn't start or end at our borders. And as I said before, it appears we see the same problems and the same difficulty in coming up with answers that address both their needs and U.S concerns.

[ewen21]

LaBombo, hats off for trying. You have nothing to defend. The last three points you make cannot be disputed. Whether they are acknowledged or understood makes no difference.

 

My original point had more to do with the hypocrisy of democrats on this issue.

[Badsmerf]

We all agree this is a migration crises. The difference in opinion is how to deal with it. I think there are some steps we could take that would have immediate impacts.

 

1. Legalize marijuana immediately. Counties can institute dry policies the same way they can with alcohol. This shouldn't even be a debate anymore, and most of the country is in support of it.

 

2. Legalize dreamers. No reason they have been here for decades without certainty. I'm sure a bunch can't even speak their home language.

 

3. Beef up and streamline our process facilities at the border. Cut the red tape, allow these people to either enter or send them back asap.

 

4. Institute some type monthly rolling minimum and cap to how many people are allowed in. An unlimited number would be unacceptable to many, and I think part of what scares people. Make it fair and transparent for both sides of the debate.

 

5. More support to Mexico and central America. Better relationships, and possible military intervention to stabilize those regions. I have the same beliefs I did with Syria refugees: they don't want to leave, but are scared for their lives. Make their home country stronger and they'll stay. This might cause backlash from the weak UN, but it will permanently fix the problem we helped create.

[ewen21]

Ok, I can agree with some of that. The first part is part to hammer out the 3rd point. I guess we need to clarify what the red tape comes down to. Both sides of the aisle agree the law and the process compounds the issue. Citizens must understand this issue more deeply because it's going to be big on the campaign trail before we know it.

 

For my meager part, I into the forms for asylum seekers and it isn't very user friendly. That is something which can be recitified almost instantly (if has been yet). I might have looked at dated information, even if it was only a couple of months old.

 

As far as restoring relations with Mexico goes, I would like that but easier said than done. That's a two way street. Not sure we can conceptualize exactly what the US means to Mexicans. It would be nice to arrange town halls via video conference between Mexican and American voters. Not sure as to the feasibility of that but it can't hurt.

 

One other thing, though..,

If you think Trump is bad how bad could the leadership be in the Central American nations if it's producing this massive burgeoning crop of asylum seekers? There is such a history of corruption and lawlessness there. Where can THEY fix this problem? Do they want to? They don't have a constitution nor do they have the wealth of resources we have. What kind of support do they need? Are they going to be amenable to our "help"? I don't think it's our responsibility to build infrastructure there when we have so SO much to do here.

 

This is an urgent problem and it is one that appeared rather suddenly. The opiod crisis is a new phase in the battle against addictive drugs and that will likely never be won. It's been an ongoing issue for years. Then again, the production of some of these drugs might need to be discontinued utterly.

(That is another conversation altogether)

[Badsmerf]

I disagree the migrant issue crept up on us. It has been an ongoing situation that has been made worse by policies of the Trump administration, and the Clinton administration before that.

[ewen21]

I didn't say crept up on us. I said it is an urgent one that appeared rather suddenly.

 

The Trump administration has not made the problem worse. The problem is that people know that they can enter illegally, be detained and then released. There is the issue right there and it existed long before Trump was inaugurated. To not acknowledge that is to admit you just don't know the issue.

 

Read the seventh paragraph and you tell me if Trump created this issue.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/barr-asylum-bail.amp.html

 

Trump is responding to something that's being manipulated by "asylum seekers"

[ewen21]

NOTE: I will try only to use liberal publications when I present facts on the issue of immigration.

[Mike Sixel]

 

NOTE: I will try only to use liberal publications when I present facts on the issue of immigration.

 

this made me laugh! thanks for that.......though probably not your intent.....

 

I'd bet we agree a bit more on immigration than other things.....

 

As evidence for my earlier post that we could pay for this if we wanted, over 600MM dollars has been donated by a few billionaires to fix Notre Dame. I don't begrudge them that choice, but it is interesting how much they'll give to fix a building, compared to helping people. Again, to be clear, it's great they are doing this, just interesting....

 

edit: that might be 300MM, I can't recall right now.....but that's not the point.

[Mr. Brooks]

this made me laugh! thanks for that.......though probably not your intent.....

 

I'd bet we agree a bit more on immigration than other things.....

 

As evidence for my earlier post that we could pay for this if we wanted, over 600MM dollars has been donated by a few billionaires to fix Notre Dame. I don't begrudge them that choice, but it is interesting how much they'll give to fix a building, compared to helping people. Again, to be clear, it's great they are doing this, just interesting....

 

edit: that might be 300MM, I can't recall right now.....but that's not the point.

I mean, we don't know how much those same billionaires donate to causes than help people, it might collectively be 900M, or 2 billion. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

[Badsmerf]

I didn't say crept up on us. I said it is an urgent one that appeared rather suddenly.

 

The Trump administration has not made the problem worse. The problem is that people know that they can enter illegally, be detained and then released. There is the issue right there and it existed long before Trump was inaugurated. To not acknowledge that is to admit you just don't know the issue.

 

Read the seventh paragraph and you tell me if Trump created this issue.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/barr-asylum-bail.amp.html

 

Trump is responding to something that's being manipulated by "asylum seekers"

Has Trump made it better, neutral, or worse? I think he has clearly made the issue worse.

[ewen21]

If we are going to be factual, The number of cases where "asylum seekers" cite "credible fear" skyrocketed during Obama administration.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/PED_CredibleFearWorkloadReport.pdf

Whether or not that is on him or not, I am in no place to assume. I do know that to say this is due to Trump's policies really is off the rails. You'd think they'd run away from the border with that racist Trump in charge...

Then again, maybe they see a booming economy and a chance to succeed here.

 

I think these caravans of people at this point don't care about the process. They understand they will be detained for a short period of time and can be released. After that they can take their chances, with the increased numbers and how backed up the courts are they might never get their hearing. I think they figure being in limbo here beats life in their homeland. They are more desperate than ever and as Badserf points out, it's been going on for a while. As you can see from the data in the link I provided the numbers spiked during Obama's second term

 

There is your problem. Trump understands that, but how does the problem get fixed? Someone has to come up with something.

 

To sit back and say it takes a humanitarian effort on our part in those countries to fix them is awfully presumptuous. We can work on that, but far more pressing is the issue we have at the border now AND with all the detainees being released

[Mike Sixel]

I mean, we don't know how much those same billionaires donate to causes than help people, it might collectively be 900M, or 2 billion. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I never said otherwise, but there is money, which was my only point. Which I didn't make clear?

[ewen21]

Badsmerf, WHICH aspect of the problem? You think more people are dying to get into the US because of Trump?

 

I don't follow

[ewen21]

Mike, I think it makes the most sense for me to cite the NY Times or some other liberal media outlet to buttress a point. Glad I can make you laugh (I try to amuse sometimes)

[ewen21]

I think link this is a must read for anyone speaking on the migrant issue at the border. It states rather clearly that those who cross the border illegally are detailed. There is no question they know it going into the journey. Then it is determined via a screening if the migrant has reasonable or credible fear. The NY Times says 75% of the screenings determine "credible or reasonable fear" is present. According to the article this is due to "congressionally mandated rules that set a fairly low bar for approval".  Once they pass this screening they are set loose and given a work permit.  In essence they have circumvented the system (for the time being)


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/barr-asylum-bail.amp.html

Trump is not the reason why there now is a border crisis. The conditions in the countries in question and the crunch of humany at the border, coupled with laws that allow illegals to be detained and released IS the problem. The numbers have become so insane so quickly that it could take YEARS for a released detainee to get a hearing. This is what's making them so bold. They more than willing to take their chances of never being found after they are released (or better yet, slip through the cracks).

 

No, this isn't on Donald Trump.  Trump is the one fixated on trying to quell this mess (or possibly end it). Say what you will about his methods, but I credit him for acknowledging the issue.