• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

U.S. Border and Immigration

zorro99 said:
Yes it would.
Click to expand...

Source?

The link I posted earlier says DHS has the option to close it if there's more than 4000 per day average for one week straight.

It also says DHS is required to close the border to illegal crossers if the average exceeds 5000 per day for a one week period.

The DHS is required to close the border if there are more than 8500 encounters in a single day. And that does not close it to all people trying to cross.

Unless can provide a source, what you said is a big fat lie.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
The "problem" with the border stems from a) the closing up of legal routes for asylum seekers, b) the cutting of numbers of seasonal visas for workers in various jobs that are only required seasonally and c) stop *********** up the countries immigrants are coming from. Fix the problems with the pathways for immigration (especially for non-WASPS) and the border problems will lessen.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that... what is it that we are doing exactly?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
the US has spend a third of a TRILLION dollars on Immigration Enforcement and Border Security in the last 20 years.

Clearly, the issue is not that we don't throw enough resources at the problem, but that it is politically advantageous not to solve the problem.
Click to expand...

Where is the money going?
 
lobosrul5 said:
The "problem" with the border stems from a) the closing up of legal routes for asylum seekers, b) the cutting of numbers of seasonal visas for workers in various jobs that are only required seasonally and c) stop *********** up the countries immigrants are coming from. Fix the problems with the pathways for immigration (especially for non-WASPS) and the border problems will lessen.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing that... what is it that we are doing exactly?
Click to expand...
Well, for one, they cut back the foreign aid given to several South American countries. (This was done as "punishment" by Trump for not stopping the flow of immigrants, but it just makes the problem worse.)

See: NPR

They have implemented sanctions on certain South and Central American countries. (Admittedly, there may be some justification for those, since in some cases the governments of those countries are oppressive. But it still results in people getting displaced as they search for a better economic life.)

You also have a more generic "Climate change is leading to food insecurity" in some south American countries. And since the U.S. contributes more carbon dioxide per capita than your average south American country, they are more to blame for the problem.
 
RolandRat said:
If he was allowed entry, how was he an illegal immigrant? Isn't the moral of this story more that border staff should be competent than a problem with migration?
Click to expand...

I don't know the exact statue/law, but the article says he was "illegally present."

To answer your 2nd question, it can be both incompetence and illegal immigration.
 
Bogative said:
I don't know the exact statue/law, but the article says he was "illegally present."

To answer your 2nd question, it can be both incompetence and illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

Probably overstayed his visa then. That is the usual way they get in. Get a temporary visa, come in legally, never leave. Crossing the border illegally is for suckers.

It's a major reason why the whole "Secure the Border!" thing is a load of dingo's kidneys from people who still think the Maginot Line was unbeatable.
 
Bogative said:
Source?

The link I posted earlier says DHS has the option to close it if there's more than 4000 per day average for one week straight.

It also says DHS is required to close the border to illegal crossers if the average exceeds 5000 per day for a one week period.

The DHS is required to close the border if there are more than 8500 encounters in a single day. And that does not close it to all people trying to cross.

Unless can provide a source, what you said is a big fat lie.
Click to expand...

Not a lie. The legislation, per your source, would mandate border closings when certain thresholds are met. The bill’s objective is to prevent surges that overwhelm federal authorities.
 
Delvo said:
Just like my new diet requires that I stop eating pizza for a week if I already ate 12 pizzas last week.
Click to expand...

A diet mandating eating nothing for a week would be effective no doubt but hardly practical.
 
zorro99 said:
Not a lie. The legislation, per your source, would mandate border closings when certain thresholds are met. The bill’s objective is to prevent surges that overwhelm federal authorities.
Click to expand...

That (proposed) bill seems to say that a the US will accept 5000 criminal violations of the law per day and take those persons into migrant processing facilities inside the US. After that, enforce the law.

Why not just enforce the law?
Migrants will just need go to proper ports of entry.

No one needs to sign a bill or provide funding to do that.
 
Last edited:
Sherkeu said:
That (proposed) bill seems to say that a the US will accept 5000 criminal violations of the law per day and take those persons into migrant processing facilities inside the US. After that, enforce the law.

Why not just enforce the law?
Migrants will just need go to proper ports of entry.

No one needs to sign a bill or provide funding to do that.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. And I just had a conversation with my dad (my proxy for what the far right-wing, watches Fox News/Business 8 to 12 hours a day, thinks), about this. He has the same misconceptions. BY FEDERAL LAW (from the 1980's), anyone who seeks asylum in the United States is now here legally until they get a hearing. There is now a 6 year backlog before anyone can get to the hearing. They are not illegal, until a court hears their case and (usually) denies their asylum claim. The Senate bill allows the POTUS to no longer accept asylum seekers once (on average) it gets to 5,000 a day. And, at their discretion, once it hits 4,000 a day. We are MASSIVELY over those numbers right now.

I implore you to listen to:



Note, that they are anti-Trump conservatives. It gives a very detailed and "just the facts" of our ayslum seeking problem, and whats in the bill. Its also on spotify and probably some other platforms under "Advisory Opinion".
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
No it doesn't. And I just had a conversation with my dad (my proxy for what the far right-wing, watches Fox News/Business 8 to 12 hours a day, thinks), about this. He has the same misconceptions. BY FEDERAL LAW (from the 1980's), anyone who seeks asylum in the United States is now here legally until they get a hearing. There is now a 6 year backlog before anyone can get to the hearing. They are not illegal, until a court hears their case and (usually) denies their asylum claim. The Senate bill allows the POTUS to no longer accept asylum seekers once (on average) it gets to 5,000 a day. And, at their discretion, once it hits 4,000 a day. We are MASSIVELY over those numbers right now.

I implore you to listen to:



Note, that they are anti-Trump conservatives. It gives a very detailed and "just the facts" of our ayslum seeking problem, and whats in the bill. Its also on spotify and probably some other platforms under "Advisory Opinion".
Click to expand...

When I say illegal, I mean crossing illegally.
If it was legal, they would not need the cartels and coyotes to drop them off strategically.

Asylum seekers can go to an embassy, consulate, first safe country, or official port of entry to the US.

Every loophole is being exploited and the laws are bent or just ignored.

Ill take a listen though.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I believe that is the leader, not the GOP masses.
Click to expand...

No, it's the majority of them. How do you think he got to be the leader? He feeds from them and they feed from him. It's not just despondent poor people left behind by the system. The majority of college-educated whites vote for him. Across all economic classes. That's not "I was left behind". that's "A black succeeded and I'm pissed off".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom