followed later by don't come
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/16/politics/joe-biden-migrant-children-border-immigration/index.html
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?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.
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.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?
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.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.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'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 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.
Most people would agree. But it's also why we have so many illegal crossings.Fair.
My thought on how to fix this is remain in Mexico for processing. No one gets entry until processed.
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.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 don't think so. We don't control the supply. Once they've passed through Mexico, we're stuck.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.
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.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.
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.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.
What about the reality on the ground, which is the US and Canada have a big problem with illegal immigration?It's one of the worst parts of the modern media space. How political messaging completely buries the reality of what politicians are communicating.
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.
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).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.