National Emergency

[PhantomWolf]

What I think is crazy is that the President can act in an Unconstitutional manner, and when the Congress rebukes him and passes a resolution that he can't do what he's doing, it all comes back to whether or not the President is willing to actually sign off on that resolution to stop him doing what he wants to so.

It's like giving a child final say on if they get sent to their room for being naughty.

 

[phiwum]

What I think is crazy is that the President can act in an Unconstitutional manner, and when the Congress rebukes him and passes a resolution that he can't do what he's doing, it all comes back to whether or not the President is willing to actually sign off on that resolution to stop him doing what he wants to so.

It's like giving a child final say on if they get sent to their room for being naughty.

In the original act, the President had no say after Congress "legislatively vetoed" the act, but it was declared unconstitutional. See Wikipedia.

Say what you will about Trump. His presidency is teaching us lots of stuff about the US government that we wouldn't otherwise know. I know lots more about the 25th amendment than I used to, for instance.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This,
FOr the record, I did not like when some Dems started talking about what one of their Presidents could do with declaring emergencies. It's a terrible idea,I don't care who does it or if what you want to implement is a great idea. It's just wrong, and huge step on the road to an authoritarian state. Not that far from an "Enabling Law" in fact.

They are trying to illustrate the dangers of an authoritarian move like Trump just made. Trumpanzees would love a Trump-king, but don't think about it if that would-be king did things that they didn't like.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I'm not seeing many headlines about the great invasion from Mexico that was Trump's stated reason for this Emergency. Seems to be business-as-usual down there.

I see a few families with kids jumped a fence and presented themselves to border authorities claiming refugees status and were detained and processed peacefully without murdering or even threatening one solid citizen and taking their job. They even had a movie made about them on the way by the president's propaganda team, showing their capture using existing technologies!

So has Mexico called the invasion off? Or are we just waiting now for the dam to burst?

 

[slyjoe]

I'm not seeing many headlines about the great invasion from Mexico that was Trump's stated reason for this Emergency. Seems to be business-as-usual down there.

I see a few families with kids jumped a fence and presented themselves to border authorities claiming refugees status and were detained and processed peacefully without murdering or even threatening one solid citizen and taking their job. They even had a movie made about them on the way by the president's propaganda team, showing their capture using existing technologies!

So has Mexico called the invasion off? Or are we just waiting now for the dam to burst?

Was that the video where the refugees slid their way through a wall?

 

[phiwum]

I'm not seeing many headlines about the great invasion from Mexico that was Trump's stated reason for this Emergency. Seems to be business-as-usual down there.

I see a few families with kids jumped a fence and presented themselves to border authorities claiming refugees status and were detained and processed peacefully without murdering or even threatening one solid citizen and taking their job. They even had a movie made about them on the way by the president's propaganda team, showing their capture using existing technologies!

So has Mexico called the invasion off? Or are we just waiting now for the dam to burst?

There is a definite increase in the number of illegal immigrants (those crossing illegally, I mean, even if they turn themselves in for asylum status) over recent years. It is not record setting, unless one focuses on the number of families now compared to previous years.

I think it is genuinely stressing the system. It's a problem that needs to be addressed.

Not, of course, by starting a years- or decade-long project of building a wall after Congress denied the funds.

 

[Minoosh]

The numbers of illegal crossings are not as high as previously (not nearly so, if I'm not mistaken) ...

There is a definite increase in the number of illegal immigrants (those crossing illegally, I mean, even if they turn themselves in for asylum status) over recent years.

Maybe some nuance is lost with my snipping above, but I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say. That illegal crossings fell but have had a sharp uptick recently?

 

[phiwum]

Maybe some nuance is lost with my snipping above, but I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say. That illegal crossings fell but have had a sharp uptick recently?

That's partly what I'm saying, yes. The current situation is also much different than the previous problems. More people claiming asylum puts different stress on the system than people coming into the country to work illegally. Handling families is also different than handling single men (and, of course, I'm not saying it's been done well).

Obviously, I am not an expert on immigration, but from what I've read, there is definitely stress on the system, perhaps a crisis. There are plenty of things that ought to be done and these things will require money. Building a wall is not one of the things that ought to be done in response to the current situation.

 

[Lurch]

That's partly what I'm saying, yes. The current situation is also much different than the previous problems. More people claiming asylum puts different stress on the system than people coming into the country to work illegally. Handling families is also different than handling single men (and, of course, I'm not saying it's been done well).

Obviously, I am not an expert on immigration, but from what I've read, there is definitely stress on the system, perhaps a crisis. There are plenty of things that ought to be done and these things will require money. Building a wall is not one of the things that ought to be done in response to the current situation.

Why would "the system" be stressed? Could it be because of being confined to a very small region adjacent to the border? In a nation of more than 300 million, how many new arrivals requiring accommodation would impose hardship on the host? Let's say that one entrant per thousand nationals (a 0.1% increase) is feasible. That would be more than 300,000 folk who could be in process until getting on their own feet.

The top 0.1% of the wealthiest Americans could probably fund this themselves and not feel the pinch.

If you want to see an example of a nation being willing to stress its system to help refugees, look to tiny Jordan. The Syrians that streamed across that frontier amounted to well more than 1 Syrian per thousand Jordanians.

 

[phiwum]

Why would "the system" be stressed? Could it be because of being confined to a very small region adjacent to the border? In a nation of more than 300 million, how many new arrivals requiring accommodation would impose hardship on the host? Let's say that one entrant per thousand nationals (a 0.1% increase) is feasible. That would be more than 300,000 folk who could be in process until getting on their own feet.

The top 0.1% of the wealthiest Americans could probably fund this themselves and not feel the pinch.

If you want to see an example of a nation being willing to stress its system to help refugees, look to tiny Jordan. The Syrians that streamed across that frontier amounted to well more than 1 Syrian per thousand Jordanians.

When I wrote that the system was stressed, I meant the immigration system can't process the asylum claims nearly fast enough, for instance.

I'm absolutely not opposed to helping refugees. I think that we should invest money in, for instance, immigration judges, staff, etc., in order to get these claims processed in a reasonable time.

I think you misinterpreted me.

 

[quadraginta]

There is a definite increase in the number of illegal immigrants (those crossing illegally, I mean, even if they turn themselves in for asylum status) over recent years. It is not record setting, unless one focuses on the number of families now compared to previous years.

If they are turning themselves in to claim refugee status when they cross the border then they are not "crossing illegally", since that process is specifically allowed under Federal law.

I think it is genuinely stressing the system. It's a problem that needs to be addressed.

It didn't stress the system for all those years when the numbers were routinely far higher. What has changed?

Not, of course, by starting a years- or decade-long project of building a wall after Congress denied the funds.

Using the transparently bogus, ginned-up claim of a "National Emergency" in an effort to make an end run with the intention to thwart the Constitutionally mandated rights restricted to Congress and not to the Executive is the problem.

Why it was done is almost irrelevant.

 

[quadraginta]

When I wrote that the system was stressed, I meant the immigration system can't process the asylum claims nearly fast enough, for instance.

<snip>

Oddly enough, they are processing them at a rate far lower than they have historically. Why is that? What changed?

 

[phiwum]

If they are turning themselves in to claim refugee status when they cross the border then they are not "crossing illegally", since that process is specifically allowed under Federal law.

The act of crossing the border without authorization is illegal. It nonetheless
does not prevent filing for asylum.

It didn't stress the system for all those years when the numbers were routinely far higher. What has changed?

As I said somewhere in this thread, Asylum cases take more resources than the typical young male looking to work illegally in the US.

Using the transparently bogus, ginned-up claim of a "National Emergency" in an effort to make an end run with the intention to thwart the Constitutionally mandated rights restricted to Congress and not to the Executive is the problem.

Why it was done is almost irrelevant.

I am not defending the emergency declaration. Someone had denied that there's a crisis at the border. I don't know if it's a crisis, but there are significant problems at the border.

We can acknowledge that there are problems that need to be solved, indeed require immediate attention, while still rejecting the claim that a national emergency declaration (especially one aimed at a years-long construction project rather than immediate attention on the problem at hand) is reasonable.

 

[phiwum]

Oddly enough, they are processing them at a rate far lower than they have historically. Why is that? What changed?

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the stress at the border is intentional. I wouldn't put it past the administration to make the problem look worse than it is.

That doesn't mean there isn't also a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Perhaps the problem is entirely a fiction produced by the administration, but I don't think that's terribly plausible. There is a rise in the numbers, and I don't think that the backlog is entirely due to nefarious scheming by the administration.

Seems to me you think I'm defending Trump here. I'm not. I don't think that the administration has made any suggestion at all that will help alleviate the current situation. I think they're exaggerating the problem and producing a faux solution only for political gain. I think they're using despicable terms when doing so (describing asylum seekers as an "invasion" for instance).

You don't have to swallow Trump brand koolaid in order to suggest that the current flow of families seeking asylum presents real challenges that should be addressed.

 

[quadraginta]

The act of crossing the border without authorization is illegal. It nonetheless
does not prevent filing for asylum.

Asylum seekers are protected from penalty by U.S. law.

On November 9, 2018, the Trump Administration issued an interim final rule and presidential proclamation seeking to bar refugees from asylum if they cross the southern border "between official ports of entry." This illegal move would put thousands of refugees at risk of deportation back to persecution, separation from their families, and other harms.

This move is illegal because under U.S. law, people present in the United States after crossing the border may apply for asylum. The Refugee Convention also protects refugees from penalties due to illegal entry or presence. These legal protections recognize that people fleeing violence and persecution often have little choice but to cross borders to seek asylum.

Trying to make hay out of the illegality of simply crossing the border is nothing but misdirection. There are explicit provisions made to address it.

The reason for those exceptions is because other avenues can be impeded, such as;

CBP officers turn back asylum seekers by outright refusal or by telling them to come back another day. In 2017, Human Rights First and other organizations documented numerous examples of illegal turn-backs at multiple crossing points, including the California-Mexico San Ysidro port of entry and Texas-Mexico ports of entry (Hidalgo-Reynosa, Brownsville-Matamoros, Roma-Ciudad Miguel Aleman, Progreso-Nuevo Progreso, Laredo, Paso del Norte, and Stanton Street). The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) similarly documents turn backs by U.S. officials on the Mexico side of the Arizona Nogales port of entry, and the Texas ACLU’s Border Rights Center reports that CBP officers turn away asylum seekers throughout Texas.

When the Trump administration is actively preventing the use of ports of entry as an avenue to apply for asylum the desperate have other legal options, which we have made legal provisions to support.

As I said somewhere in this thread, Asylum cases take more resources than the typical young male looking to work illegally in the US.

What you said that I replied to was that the asylum system was being "stressed".

This is not the case.

CBP officials have restricted the number of asylum seekers processed at ports of entry daily, forcing asylum seekers to wait for extended periods in dangerous and difficult conditions or to cross the border between ports. Border officials claim they restrict the numbers of asylum seekers processed because of capacity issues, but reports show that CBP processing rooms are not full and that there is an orchestrated effort to reduce asylum processing. This month WOLA reported that CBP has “notably slowed” its processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry. Each month since June, CBP has processed only four thousand individuals at ports of entry, down from six thousand in prior months.

I am not defending the emergency declaration. Someone had denied that there's a crisis at the border. I don't know if it's a crisis, but there are significant problems at the border.

There is no evidence of any "problems" significantly different than have always existed. The evidence actually shows that the historic trend has been fewer "problems.

Except for the ones which Trump's border policies have created.

We can acknowledge that there are problems that need to be solved, indeed require immediate attention, while still rejecting the claim that a national emergency declaration (especially one aimed at a years-long construction project rather than immediate attention on the problem at hand) is reasonable.

Maybe you can, but there is no evidence I have seen that problems requiring "immediate attention" exist, except for the ones the Trump Administration has caused themselves.

The border situation had been steadily improving until the recent past (as in, the last two years). What do you think has changed?

 

[quadraginta]

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the stress at the border is intentional. I wouldn't put it past the administration to make the problem look worse than it is.

That doesn't mean there isn't also a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Perhaps the problem is entirely a fiction produced by the administration, but I don't think that's terribly plausible. There is a rise in the numbers, and I don't think that the backlog is entirely due to nefarious scheming by the administration.

Seems to me you think I'm defending Trump here. I'm not. I don't think that the administration has made any suggestion at all that will help alleviate the current situation. I think they're exaggerating the problem and producing a faux solution only for political gain. I think they're using despicable terms when doing so (describing asylum seekers as an "invasion" for instance).

You don't have to swallow Trump brand koolaid in order to suggest that the current flow of families seeking asylum presents real challenges that should be addressed.

Your mistaken beliefs about what has actually been going on at our border suggest that you've imbibed more Kool-Aid than you realize.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Was that the video where the refugees slid their way through a wall?

Ayup. Hemos venido a tomar todos sus trabajos y armas, señor.

Trump tweets 'this is a national emergency' and shares a video of 247 immigrants that crossed New Mexico border and immediately turned THEMSELVES in to authorities

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...res-video-247-immigrants-crossing-border.html

 

[phiwum]

Asylum seekers are protected from penalty by U.S. law.

​

Trying to make hay out of the illegality of simply crossing the border is nothing but misdirection. There are explicit provisions made to address it.

On the contrary, I was simply trying to make clear who I meant when I referred to illegal immigrants and to include the fact that those who illegally cross the border can apply for asylum. I'm not trying to misdirect attention and I didn't use the term "illegal immigrant" in any pejorative sense at all.

If you prefer a different term, that's fine by me. I don't care what we call these folk so long as it's clear who we're talking about: families that cross the border without authorization and with the intention of applying for asylum. That's the group I'm primarily discussing.

The reason for those exceptions is because other avenues can be impeded, such as;

I'm not arguing against these exceptions.

When the Trump administration is actively preventing the use of ports of entry as an avenue to apply for asylum the desperate have other legal options, which we have made legal provisions to support.




What you said that I replied to was that the asylum system was being "stressed".

This is not the case.

​

There is no evidence of any "problems" significantly different than have always existed. The evidence actually shows that the historic trend has been fewer "problems.

Except for the ones which Trump's border policies have created.




Maybe you can, but there is no evidence I have seen that problems requiring "immediate attention" exist, except for the ones the Trump Administration has caused themselves.

The border situation had been steadily improving until the recent past (as in, the last two years). What do you think has changed?

I got the impression that the system is stressed from this article at the New York Times. If I read your quotations correctly, Human Rights First is saying that entry at legal ports in order to apply for asylum is being purposely slowed. That's not the issue I was discussing. I was discussing the processing of asylum seekers who've illegally crossed the border (as well, I suppose, the processing of those who come in at a legal port). This includes the challenges of working through the long (and getting longer) backlog in the immigration court system.

Now, I totally agree that this backlog is exacerbated by the Trump administration's inaction on appointing immigration judges, but there is also an increase in the number of these cases.

It seems to me that the large number of families seeking asylum would be a challenge even without the efforts of the administration to make it look worse than it is. Immigrant families have different and greater needs than the single men that used to be the bulk of border crossers. Getting asylum cases to completion requires more work than a simple deportation hearing. I don't think it's a paranoid delusion to see this as a growing (if presumably temporary) issue.

 

[slyjoe]

Ayup. Hemos venido a tomar todos sus trabajos y armas, señor.

Y bebss. Y las mujeres blancas.

...snip.

 

[phiwum]

Your mistaken beliefs about what has actually been going on at our border suggest that you've imbibed more Kool-Aid than you realize.

The director of a volunteer network that temporarily houses migrants in El Paso has apparently drunk the same Kool-Aid.

The throngs of new families are also affecting communities on the American side of the border. In El Paso, a volunteer network that temporarily houses the migrants after they are released from custody has had to expand to 20 facilities, compared with only three during the same period last year. Migrants are now being housed in churches, a converted nursing home and about 125 hotel rooms that are being paid for with donations.

“We had never seen these kinds of numbers,” said Ruben Garcia, the director of the organization, called Annunciation House. He said that during one week in February, immigration authorities had released more than 3,600 migrants to his organization, the highest number in any single week since the group’s founding in 1978.

For the most part, Mr. Garcia said that his staff and volunteer workers had been able to keep up with the surge, often making frantic calls to churches to request access to more space for housing families on short notice. But sometimes their best efforts were upended, he said, including on one day last week, when the authorities dropped off 150 more migrants than planned.

“We just didn’t have the space,” Mr. Garcia said.

There's a challenge for you: finding temporary housing for asylum seeking families. I would imagine that the single men crossing the border to find migrant labor opportunities didn't have the same housing needs as those who stay put for a pending asylum case.

I don't know why you're wed to the notion that there's nothing at all unusual down at the border. There is a steep increase in the number of asylum seeking families. As I understand it, we've never had this many such folk. Acknowledging that this situation requires attention shouldn't be controversial in the least. I'm not saying that we ought to close the border, detain these folk or anything of the sort. I'm saying that this change at the border requires attention and resources.

Just because Trump is using the migrant influx for his political gain doesn't mean that everyone else should deny anything unusual is happening.