DACA, immigration reform whatever

[Sawbonz 27776]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, asylum as a legal status DOES have standards.  And it should.  That also means that it should be promptly and fairly applied.  Having people wait around for years for a determination isn't good for anyone.  Being bullshit and draconian in applying the standards isn't good, either.  E.g., I think that plenty of people coming here from Central America likely have good asylum claims because they legitimately fear for their lives due to complex political reasons.  But it shouldn't just be a magic word that anyone says and automatically gets legal status: "I said 'asylum!'  I get to stay!"  There is a measured and sane approach to this.

I mean, nobody is actually interested in that, because "measured and sane" causes a fucking allergic reaction in 98% of the American public, but fuck it, thought I'd type it out anyway.

Or you know they could let people without felonies and certain misdemeanors who just want to come over and work, actually do that. No new pathway to citizenship, just opportunity to come across the border at will for work. 

[hayden_horn 11365]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Or you know they could let people without felonies and certain misdemeanors who just want to come over and work, actually do that. No new pathway to citizenship, just opportunity to come across the border at will for work. 

now wait wait wait.

are you suggesting we just...formalize a way to let them in? 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11822]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Or you know they could let people without felonies and certain misdemeanors who just want to come over and work, actually do that. No new pathway to citizenship, just opportunity to come across the border at will for work. 

Are you insinuating we shouldn’t let people with felony convictions into the country?  We should make an ad about that.  

[Sawbonz 27776]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

now wait wait wait.

are you suggesting we just...formalize a way to let them in? 

I know crazy talk

2 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Are you insinuating we shouldn’t let people with felony convictions into the country?  We should make an ad about that.  

There’s at least one I wish we could throw out

[Brisketexan 105569]

Or you know they could let people without felonies and certain misdemeanors who just want to come over and work, actually do that. No new pathway to citizenship, just opportunity to come across the border at will for work. 

I’m all about a clear and easy work visa/permit program, always have been.

[Sawbonz 27776]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I’m all about a clear and easy work visa/permit program, always have been.

But then Tyson et al would have to treat their employees better 

 

also some on the left are adamant it would have to involve pathway to citizenship 

[InkaUtexas 26345]

One solution we won't enact is allow people to claim asylum in their country of record. The laws are a bit odd, and they do not have refugee status, but in the case of violence their are arguments they should. This means they are provided status in the first country they arrive in.

Concerning claiming the status in country, it is easier to determine legitimate cases. One thing that holds up reviews is trying to verify status in country of record. We do not have to send judges, just researchers/fact finders who work on determine case validity. We do this a lot for visa applications, but not for non-legal migrants.

Might work, might not, but we won't even consider it.

[bolverk 29807]

41 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

One solution we won't enact is allow people to claim asylum in their country of record. The laws are a bit odd, and they do not have refugee status, but in the case of violence their are arguments they should. This means they are provided status in the first country they arrive in.

Concerning claiming the status in country, it is easier to determine legitimate cases. One thing that holds up reviews is trying to verify status in country of record. We do not have to send judges, just researchers/fact finders who work on determine case validity. We do this a lot for visa applications, but not for non-legal migrants.

Might work, might not, but we won't even consider it.

But that all requires forethought, giving a shit, and resources that half of this country would rather devote to building a wall so that we don't have to give a shit.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4980]

4 hours ago, bolverk said:

To be somewhat fair, the US has negotiated for Mexico to accept up to 30,000 per month from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, which is better than shipping them back to their originating countries. I'm sure they'd prefer making it into the US (I would), but there is the serious issue of where to place the masses who are coming.

Even under this proposal, the US would be processing 118,000 claimants per month at a minimum (2,500 a day at the border plus 1,450 appointments through the app), which doesn't include exemptions for "humanitarian reasons, including victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied minors and those with severe medical emergencies."

There's also the issue of Republicans rejecting the bill several months ago, which would've provided additional resources to process claims, which is what's sorely needed. At the end of the day, I don't like it, but I understand the awful political reality of it in election season. I don't agree, though, that this is merely a political stunt.

The only long-term solution is comprehensive immigration reform, which the GOP has been blocking for more than a decade, along with economic and political reforms in countries from which economic migrants and asylum seekers are fleeing.

 

How it's supposed to work:

Once this order is in effect, migrants who arrive at the border but do not express fear of returning to their home countries will be subject to immediate removal from the United States, within a matter of days or even hours. Those migrants could face punishments that could include a five-year bar from reentering the U.S. or even criminal prosecution.

Meanwhile, anyone who expresses that fear or an intention to seek asylum will be screened by a U.S. asylum officer but at a higher standard than currently used. If they pass the screening, they can pursue more limited forms of humanitarian protection, including the U.N. Convention Against Torture.

*****

Biden’s directive is coming when the number of migrants encountered at the border have been on a consistent decline since December, but senior administration officials say the numbers are still too high and could spike in better weather, as is typical.

Yet many questions and complications remain about how Biden’s directive would be implemented.

For instance, the administration already has an agreement with Mexico in which Mexico agrees to accept up to 30,000 citizens a month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela once they are denied entry from the U.S., and senior administration officials say that will continue under this order. But it is unclear what happens to nationals of other countries who are denied under Biden’s directive.

Four senior administration officials, who insisted on anonymity to describe the effort to reporters, acknowledged that Biden’s goal of deporting migrants quickly is complicated by insufficient funding from Congress to do so. The administration also faces certain legal constraints when it comes to detaining migrant families, and the administration said it would continue to abide by those obligations.

*****

Biden’s order outlines several groups of migrants who would be exempted due to humanitarian reasons, including victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied minors and those with severe medical emergencies.

The directive would also exempt migrants who make appointments with border officials at ports of entry using the CBP One app. About 1,450 appointments are made a day using the app, which launched last year to allow migrants to make asylum claims.

Immigration advocates worry that Biden’s plan would only increase an already monthslong backlog of migrants waiting for an appointment through the app, especially when immigration authorities do not have an accompanying surge of funding.

It could also be difficult for border officials to quickly remove migrants when many agents are already tasked with helping in shelters and other humanitarian tasks, said Jennie Murray, the president of the National Immigration Forum.

“Customs and Border Protection cannot keep up with apprehensions as it is right now because they don’t have enough personnel so it would cause more disorder,” she said.

If I recall correctly, Mexico is in a similar situation to us, in that their birthrate is not high enough to replace their workers. And their citizens emigrating to the US doesn't help. I wonder if they are banking on those extra folks to add to their workforce. 

The system we have where we need continuously expanding populations just isn’t sustainable. Not for us. Not for the rest of the world. And while I support letting folks who want to work and have a shot at the American dream in, it is probably just kicking the can down the street, with even worse consequences for the rest of the world. 

[bolverk 29807]

26 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If I recall correctly, Mexico is in a similar situation to us, in that their birthrate is not high enough to replace their workers. And their citizens emigrating to the US doesn't help. I wonder if they are banking on those extra folks to add to their workforce. 

The system we have where we need continuously expanding populations just isn’t sustainable. Not for us. Not for the rest of the world. And while I support letting folks who want to work and have a shot at the American dream in, it is probably just kicking the can down the street, with even worse consequences for the rest of the world. 

 

I agree that we don't necessarily need an ever-expanding population base but, for the time being, we do need to at least be able to replenish our aging workforce, as do Mexico and other advanced/advancing economies. Robots aren't there yet, and someone's got to pay into Social Security. Legitimizing and regulating the presence of economic migrants through a guest worker program or expanding immigration quotas would obviously help with the tax roles.

Ideally, though, other countries wouldn't be so fucked up that individuals and families would find it necessary to leave everything they know behind and risk it all to come here. It's been brought up a gazillion times, but our government could help out more on that front by investing in both soft (e.g., education) and hard infrastructure (e.g., electricity/roads), fighting corruption, supporting democratic reform, and combatting climate change to make these people's lives better (a significant share of them could be considered early climate change refugees). Obviously, it's not all on our shoulders, but we could do more to help.

All of the above would help stem the tide of both legitimate asylum seekers and economic migrants.

Edited June 5 by bolverk

[InkaUtexas 26345]

I agree, but to plays devils advocate, what else can we do from a government perspective? Part of my job is studying US Government programs for development. USAID has a pretty large budget for anti-corruption activities. Millennium Challenge is an interesting program that gets little

One thing that really hurts development and growth in Latin America and Africa is the government's bureaucracy to do anything. It can take a year to become properly licensed so people tend to work in the informal sector, and pay no taxes.

[Zepol87 9263]

Just go sell watermelon from the back the truck that is that we did until I was 8 in pleasant grove. The real issue is farmers markets aren’t really selling shit anymore. You mfers would love our asses if that was real again. Enough of your candies and macaroons 

Edited June 5 by Zepol87

[InkaUtexas 26345]

10 minutes ago, Zepol87 said:

Just go sell watermelon from the back the truck that is that we did until I was 8 in pleasant grove. The real issue is farmers markets aren’t really selling shit anymore. You mfers would love our asses if that was real again. Enough of your candies and macaroons 

This hits close to home. I hate the farmers market here. Have 1 person who sells produce (Guatemalan) and about 25 people selling crafts.

Reminds me I need to drive out Hwy 12 and get some peaches this weekend.

[4th&Five 41701]

 

[Brisketexan 105569]

10 hours ago, Zepol87 said:

Just go sell watermelon from the back the truck that is that we did until I was 8 in pleasant grove. The real issue is farmers markets aren’t really selling shit anymore. You mfers would love our asses if that was real again. Enough of your candies and macaroons 

Man....Reminds me how much I love the idea of farmer's markets, and hate the execution of farmer's markets.  They kinda sorta have decent produce at peak times (fall harvest), but otherwise, it's 497 booths selling soaps and gluten free muffins and shit, and 2 booths selling a few vegetables.

[Captainant 27970]

 

 

[Parliament 14368]

[Brisketexan 105569]

5 hours ago, Parliament said:

Don't know why you're quoting that treasonous libtard who hates America.  Marxist.