International Biden working with Mexico on revolutionary new border policy.

[ShadowRun]

The media covers for Biden with the border pretty good. It’s only going to get worse , “fact checkers” just out right lying not even trying to pretend





And another record .. shocking

 

[ShadowRun]

 

[UFCUCF]

The elected republican leadership does not believe there is a boarder problem. They have a votes problem. They will never actually fix anything at the boarder because they don't want to.

 

[panamaican]

followed later by don't come
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/16/politics/joe-biden-migrant-children-border-immigration/index.html

Which is not the same thing. There he's talking about people seeking asylum. Not anyone for any reason.

That's the frequent misrepresentation that keeps getting repeated. "Anyone fleeing oppression, come and we'll hear your asylum concern." Which is then misrepresented, via politics, as "Everyone should here because we're going to let everyone in no matter what."

It's one of the worst parts of the modern media space. How political messaging completely buries the reality of what politicians are communicating. We should get great detail from our politicians on their goals. But the more complex the message, the more easily it is misrepresented or taken out of context (such as a single line from a political speech being framed as the entire theme of the speech). Then the American public is led to believe the misleading message is the actual message. That genie isn't going back in the lamp but it is unfortunate.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Which is not the same thing. There he's talking about people seeking asylum. Not anyone for any reason.

That's the frequent misrepresentation that keeps getting repeated. "Anyone fleeing oppression, come and we'll hear your asylum concern." Which is then misrepresented, via politics, as "Everyone should here because we're going to let everyone in no matter what."

It's one of the worst parts of the modern media space. How political messaging completely buries the reality of what politicians are communicating. We should get great detail from our politicians on their goals. But the more complex the message, the more easily it is misrepresented or taken out of context (such as a single line from a political speech being framed as the entire theme of the speech). Then the American public is led to believe the misleading message is the actual message. That genie isn't going back in the lamp but it is unfortunate.

Do you believe everyone who is migrating openly across our boarder is eligible for asylum? What % do you think should qualify? Is the process working?

 

[panamaican]

Do you believe everyone who is migrating openly across our boarder is eligible for asylum? What % do you think should qualify? Is the process working?

I'm not claiming they're all entitled to asylum. I'm pointing that what he was saying was not everyone is entitled to come here. He said he would listen to anyone with an asylum claim. You can argue that most people seeking asylum aren't entitled and I wouldn't argue against that opinion.

But there's a huge difference between saying "Everyone can enter no matter what," and "Everyone with a specific claim will get a hearing."

 

[Ayin]

I'm not claiming they're all entitled to asylum. I'm pointing that what he was saying was not everyone is entitled to come here. He said he would listen to anyone with an asylum claim. You can argue that most people seeking asylum aren't entitled and I wouldn't argue against that opinion.

But there's a huge difference between saying "Everyone can enter no matter what," and "Everyone with a specific claim will get a hearing."

That does of course put your country into the same position as Greece or even the UK. There’s no reason for every single migrant to not claim Asylum. It’s an extremely long and expensive process to hear an asylum claim, which includes (not sure about the US here, more familiar with the UK and Canada) multiple attempts at appeal. Once this process has concluded there are significant hurdles to returning failed claimants, in that you cannot simply send them back one step of the journey, as they are not usually citizens of the closest nation, and that nation needs to meet the criteria for a safe return.


Does anyone know the turnaround for a failed asylum claim to be successfully deported in the US? Either to Mexico or a SA country? Having those numbers, the cost and the manpower involved in a single decision would likely change this concersation significantly.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'm not claiming they're all entitled to asylum. I'm pointing that what he was saying was not everyone is entitled to come here. He said he would listen to anyone with an asylum claim. You can argue that most people seeking asylum aren't entitled and I wouldn't argue against that opinion.

But there's a huge difference between saying "Everyone can enter no matter what," and "Everyone with a specific claim will get a hearing."

Fair.

My thought on how to fix this is remain in Mexico for processing. No one gets entry until processed.

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

Lmao that guy on the left knew

 

[panamaican]

That does of course put your country into the same position as Greece or even the UK. There’s no reason for every single migrant to not claim Asylum. It’s an extremely long and expensive process to hear an asylum claim, which includes (not sure about the US here, more familiar with the UK and Canada) multiple attempts at appeal. Once this process has concluded there are significant hurdles to returning failed claimants, in that you cannot simply send them back one step of the journey, as they are not usually citizens of the closest nation, and that nation needs to meet the criteria for a safe return.


Does anyone know the turnaround for a failed asylum claim to be successfully deported in the US? Either to Mexico or a SA country? Having those numbers, the cost and the manpower involved in a single decision would likely change this concersation significantly.

That's the reality of any bordering nation. We simply cannot stop people from approaching the border and making an asylum claim. We can set strict standards for what claims get approved. We can make the evaluation process faster so that your rejections don't clog your system.

That's the limitation. It's a like a bank and loan applications. A bank can't stop people from making a bank loan application, no matter how unqualified the applicant is.

 

[panamaican]

Fair.

My thought on how to fix this is remain in Mexico for processing. No one gets entry until processed.

Most people would agree. But it's also why we have so many illegal crossings.

Applications get processed at entry points. But if the processing takes a long time, people sneak in and file their applications from within the country. That's reality. Think about like a McDonald's drive thru window. You pull up to the restaurant and you look at the drive thru line. If it's really long, a lot people just park their car and go inside, hoping that the inside line is shorter than the outside line.

How do you fix it? You've got to either create more drive thru lanes or get cars through the drive thru lane faster. Otherwise, people will keep going inside to order their food.

That's the border in a nutshell. The problem with walls isn't that walls are intrinsically destined to fail. It's that people inclined to sneak in will eventually figure out how to circumvent your wall. So, it's always whack a mole on how they're getting through. For a parallel, we certainly don't allow illegal drugs into the country yet drug dealers are constantly innovating new methods to get them here.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Most people would agree. But it's also why we have so many illegal crossings.

Applications get processed at entry points. But if the processing takes a long time, people sneak in and file their applications from within the country. That's reality. Think about like a McDonald's drive thru window. You pull up to the restaurant and you look at the drive thru line. If it's really long, a lot people just park their car and go inside, hoping that the inside line is shorter than the outside line.

How do you fix it? You've got to either create more drive thru lanes or get cars through the drive thru lane faster. Otherwise, people will keep going inside to order their food.

That's the border in a nutshell. The problem with walls isn't that walls are intrinsically destined to fail. It's that people inclined to sneak in will eventually figure out how to circumvent your wall. So, it's always whack a mole on how they're getting through. For a parallel, we certainly don't allow illegal drugs into the country yet drug dealers are constantly innovating new methods to get them here.

I feel like there are better ways to prevent the leakage. There will be leakage, but not to the scale we are bringing people in right now.

 

[panamaican]

I feel like there are better ways to prevent the leakage. There will be leakage, but not to the scale we are bringing people in right now.

I don't think so. We don't control the supply. Once they've passed through Mexico, we're stuck.

The geopolitical reality is that your illegal immigrants are leaving what they consider suboptimal situations for a better opportunity. And that even being illegal in the U.S. is better than where they're coming from. If you want to control the supply, you have to increase the incentives to stay where they are.

Because, let's keep it a buck, if you're poor by Ecuadorian standards, what exactly do you have to lose by trying to sneak in to the US? If you fail, nothing's changed. If you succeed, you can absolutely scratch out a living off the mainstream economic grid by painting houses, cutting lawns, getting paid in cash.

We have to change the incentives at the point of origin.

 

[kahiljabroni]

They had to end RIM so that they could solve the problem with RIM. And democrats will cheer no doubt.

 

[Ayin]

That's the reality of any bordering nation. We simply cannot stop people from approaching the border and making an asylum claim. We can set strict standards for what claims get approved. We can make the evaluation process faster so that your rejections don't clog your system.

That's the limitation. It's a like a bank and loan applications. A bank can't stop people from making a bank loan application, no matter how unqualified the applicant is.

The most important point of that issue being, do you admit the claimants across the land border before processing the application? Because once you have, your nation takes on a significant burden of care that will regularly result in denied claimants nonetheless remaining.

Canada and the US recognize that, which is why we have our specific agreement. The flaw in it being that, were one simply to break the law, the nation they enter becomes entirely on the hook, as Quebec and Ontario saw during the Trump administration when the special extended visas for Haitians were set to expire.

 

[panamaican]

The most important point of that issue being, do you admit the claimants across the land border before processing the application? Because once you have, your nation takes on a significant burden of care that will regularly result in denied claimants nonetheless remaining.

Canada and the US recognize that, which is why we have our specific agreement. The flaw in it being that, were one simply to break the law, the nation they enter becomes entirely on the hook, as Quebec and Ontario saw during the Trump administration when the special extended visas for Haitians were set to expire.

This is an area that a lot of people don't understand. We don't admit people across the land border before processing the application.

Applicants stay on their side of the border and get admitted if they're approved and they don't get admitted it they're rejected. However, when the application processing takes a long time, some people simply refuse to wait. And that's your illegal border crossing crowd. The slower the processing, the greater the incentive to simply jump the line by entering illegally. And once caught, they file their asylum claim at that point. The problem of course is that whether it's a deportation hearing or an asylum claim, they both take time to work through the system.

It's why I agree that the most important border control policy is to accelerate the processing of both deportation and asylum claims. They should be handled as quickly as possible and that's not happening because we don't have enough of the courts, the judges, the public defenders, etc.

 

[koquerelle]

It's one of the worst parts of the modern media space. How political messaging completely buries the reality of what politicians are communicating.

What about the reality on the ground, which is the US and Canada have a big problem with illegal immigration?

 

[Beechwood]

Voters back Texas border wall, feel Biden starting ‘civil war’

Voters back Texas border wall, feel Biden starting ‘civil war’

A sizable majority of the public supports Texas’s construction of a wall along its border with Mexico and feels that President Joe Biden’s efforts to stop it are the first step toward civil war. In a sobering analysis of the escalating topic, 69% of likely 2024 voters said that they support the...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

A sizable majority of the public supports Texas’s construction of a wall along its border with Mexico and feels that President Joe Biden’s efforts to stop it are the first step toward civil war.

In a sobering analysis of the escalating topic, 69% of likely 2024 voters said that they support the border wall and razor-wire fence that Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) has ordered. Among those, a majority, 51%, said they “strongly” back Texas in its fight to stop illegal immigration and the surge of “gotaways” getting past federal border agents.

The White House won the Supreme Court’s support for stopping Texas, but not voters.

Besides fighting voters, Biden has clashed with members of his own party over his open-borders policy.

He has charged that Congress hasn’t given him the power to close the border, but critics claim he has the authority to slow or end illegal immigration as other past presidents have, including Donald Trump and Barack Obama.

The topic threatens more than Biden’s reelection plans. A majority of voters told Rasmussen Reports that Biden is stoking the fires of civil war.

Asked, “Do you agree or disagree with this statement about the border dispute between Texas and the federal government: ‘The feds are staging a civil war, and Texas should stand their ground?'” 55% said they agreed, while 36% said they didn’t.....

 

[Scerpi]

I don't know if that's true. He put through the asylum ban last year. He continued the Trump-era policies of putting them back without a hearing. That policy continued until May '23. I'm not sure what else he could have done individually. He's tried to get Mexico to enforce it's southern border but they're not doing it.

Anything more would probably require Congress and despite control in many areas, the GOP hasn't put forward much on the deportation, enforcement side of things. We keep hearing about walls but very little about the actual process of deporting people.

Isn't ICE under Biden's authority? There was a time not long ago ICE would deport illegals. In fact, Biden slammed "Sanctuary Cities" in 2008 for not working with ICE to deport illegal immigrant.





"No great nation can be in a position where they can't control their borders. It matters how you control your borders, not just for immigration, but it matters for drugs, terror, a whole range of other things."Biden then discussed the need for more border patrol and building the wall."I've been arguing for the need to put more protection at our borders, meaning that you have more border guards. This president refusing to add the number of border guards now said he has to send the National Guard down. He vetoed. He was against adding the number of border guards.""So I think what you have to do is you have to have a significant increase in the security at the border, including limited elements where you actually have a fence. Not a fence 3000 miles like these folks are talking about. But you've got to, there are certain places people can go over and under a fence, but you can't take a hundred kilos of cocaine over and under a fence. And what you do when you have limited places where fences are in populated areas, you force these drug dealers and others around making it easier to apprehend because there's fewer places that come through.""So I think the combination of virtual fencing, some fencing, additional, additional border patrol is important."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-on-sanctuary-cities-where-does-he-stand-now/

 

[Ayin]

This is an area that a lot of people don't understand. We don't admit people across the land border before processing the application.

Applicants stay on their side of the border and get admitted if they're approved and they don't get admitted it they're rejected. However, when the application processing takes a long time, some people simply refuse to wait. And that's your illegal border crossing crowd. The slower the processing, the greater the incentive to simply jump the line by entering illegally. And once caught, they file their asylum claim at that point. The problem of course is that whether it's a deportation hearing or an asylum claim, they both take time to work through the system.

It's why I agree that the most important border control policy is to accelerate the processing of both deportation and asylum claims. They should be handled as quickly as possible and that's not happening because we don't have enough of the courts, the judges, the public defenders, etc.

I would think most people understand that asylum claimants are supposed to present themselves at official crossings to begin the process, but as you noted, there’s no negative to attempting to enter illegally and then either presenting yourself afterwards or only presenting yourself after being detained (on, in this case, US soil).

In fact, as I’d expect everyone at this point to be fully aware of, because of the nature of the agreements between some countries (as is the case between the US and Canada) the incentives are reversed, and illegal crossings, even directly into custody, are beneficial to migrants claiming asylum.


As long as there’s no penalty to application for not following the process, there’s no incentive to do so. Cutting court times down to 1/4 of their current process would still not be as beneficial as simply doing one’s best to circumvent the system and then applying if that fails.