Used Children Abandoned In The Desert

[iceberg]

hope this quote shit works.

what i am seeing is you can't "define" the actual difference as yes, there are many types. but seeking asylum is a specific target. a political opponent in china may ask for asylum because if he goes back to china, he dies. that is what it is for and no that should not be stopped.

Agree.

but it shouldn't be abused either. if you are coming over here because you want a better job or life - great. get in the much longer line. i'm sorry it's a long one and i'm sorry your country sucks and you wish to leave but that is your situation and the US as a country is horrible at how to handle this.

so far i agree.

True, but again - isn't that abuse sorted out in the courts? Most asylum requests get denied.

but what happened is they simply started saying "asylum" because the line was shorter. the democrats encouraged it because they found a way around what they view as an obstacle. i agree it's an obstacle but i disagree going around it with redefining things is a valid move to be allowed.

Maybe or maybe in some cases they genuinely are in fear for their lives. There is no question that some of those nations suffer from corrupt or weak central governments, rampant gang and cartel violence and violence towards women who have few legal rights or recourses to end it. So if they're trying for asylum it might not just be because "the line is shorter" - can you blame them? I don't see it as being "redefined" because the courts determine the outcome. It's like I can go and ask for food stamps and claim to be poor - but I'm not redefining poverty, and they will refuse me.

to me this is where we are. you seem to be leaning to "who cares what we call them, let them in" - but i'm not sure so i'll wait for you to say.

I think that's where maybe you're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying they have a right to apply for asylum - but that doesn't mean they have a right to GET asylum. That is determined by a judge who is familiar with immigration law. And I'm fine with that. That's not "let the in" - that's "let's follow the laws and procedures set up for granting asylum".

requesting asylum is a specific term for a specific process. not a magic word to make the long line of immigration disappear.

We actually AGREE on that - I think we just come at it from different angles

The quote system sucks. I had to make multiple attempts to fix mine.

except most who request it never show. but to the main point, why have the 2 lines if with one word they come on in?

we can't make it that easy.

appreciate stickng to topic. Thank you

Except...most who request it DO show up for their hearings.

Most Released Families Attend Immigration Court Hearings

trac.syr.edu

Nearly all asylum-seekers show up for court, data shows

More than a decade of data show that asylum-seekers and other migrants facing immigration hearings appear in court at least 83% of the time, with some rates as high as 96%. A new report challenges what one expert called a "pernicious myth."

www.tucsonsentinel.com

Just because there are multiple lines doesn't mean some won't try to get in through the wrong line. That's human nature. But it's easily fixed when they get their hearing and the merits of their case are examined.

How would you propose altering it in such a way that would not create hardship for genuine (or those who believe they are genuine) asylum seekers?

i have more time to get back to this one and wanted to.

first - i believe we agree on who can ask for asylum. simply living in a dangerous country isn't enough. it is spelled out here.
Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Protection under the Convention Against Torture (Form I589): Asylum is for individuals who fear they will be harmed if they return to their home country. You
must show that the harm you face is because of your race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or
membership in a particular social group. Normally you must apply for asylum within one year of
coming to the United States. If you have an aggravated felony, you will not be eligible for asylum.
Usually being afraid of returning to your home country because of general violence is not sufficient to
win asylum. Withholding of removal is for people who cannot qualify for asylum because of their
immigration history or criminal record. You have to show that there is more than a 50% chance that
you will be seriously harmed if sent back to your country. Finally, protection under the Convention
Against Torture is for people who do not qualify for asylum or withholding and who can show that they
will be tortured or killed if deported to their home country, by their home government or with their
government’s permission or knowledge.
------
so to properly ask for it - you must meet these conditions.

in 2010 - 940 people from s. america were granted asylum. while i don't know how many requested, a total of ~42k applied in 2010.

Facts and Statistics | US Asylum

www.shautsova.com

today, more than 1 million are requesting it.

More than 1 Million Migrants Are in the U.S. Seeking Asylum

A federal report reveals that 1.15 million asylum-seeking people are already living in the U.S., as Biden promises to welcome more migrants.

www.breitbart.com

There were 1,148,416 pending asylum cases in the United States — at a minimum. If those applicants were a state, they would be the 43rd largest in the United States, ahead of Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, the Dakotas, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming.
-----
now these are "pending" and not all requested in 2020 - but you can see we're in a backlog from hell that will never get caught up. why?

cause in 2019 and 2020 - approximately 400k requested it. this is about a 50% increase over 2010 and growing. asylum requests doubled in 2017 and didn't drop at all til 2020.

now to even apply for asylum they must go through the immigration process anyway. as of july 2018, 733k cases backlogged. 721 days at the time to even get a hearing. reference

now - to fact check the article in reference that up to 96% do in fact show up. i look at immigration reform.

It appears that both of these claims come from the same source: a 2018 study by the American Immigration Council (AIC). The AIC is a radical open-borders organization that aggressively campaigns for eliminating essentially all measures that combat illegal immigration. Therefore, any figures from this organization should be examined with skepticism, and for good reason – these two figures are wrong.

so - no. they do not outside of this one study that appears heavily biased. so - to be fair, do we have any other study to validate this study? if a high number do in fact show, more than 1 study should illustrate that. the article itself breaks down the issues in the calculation of the number.

what i hope *is* clear is we have a backlog from hell, waiting time for even a trial at all is a year and a half, and people requesting to get into this process is at an all time high over the last 3 years and rising.

while i agree some valid people looking for asylum may be caught in this net - it's a trap of our own creation by allowing it to happen and our courts are backlogged due to the inaction of our congress on the matter. we've created our own firestorm and don't know how to put it out. but it would also appear a group of thousands of immigrants looking for a better life simply don't quality for requesting asylum. even if they do - they must go through the immigration process anyway.

so. how do we stop the abuse of a process that is tearing up our court system and still remain fair to said process and immigration strategies for our country?

changes would have to come. period. they should come from congress, but they are not doing it. so presidents write EO's like michael jordon handing out autographs at a basketball convention and we tear up a country trying to do something because our congress won't.

we need to stop bitching at the president for this, agree to short term moves many simply won't like to stop the bleeding, then fix the problem in congress where it should be fixed.

I am short of time and using my phone, but will respond later as this deserves a good response

thats where i was yesterday - on my phone.

 

[Papageorgio]

can you please cite the changes he made that altered the baseline issue that still exists today? this comes across as excusing your side/boy because you don't like where it could go.

I'll give any new president (yes, even Trump) a break at the beginning - do you?

Policies that altered the baseline issue - I would say the "the remain in Mexico" policy that created a huge number of people bottlenecked at the border waiting for a scarce number of daily appointments. When you add the new surge to that, you have crisis.

Why is it that Presidents will take credit for what are perceived as successes and blame the previous guy for failures? It seems each of them do this silly ploy.

Well, the nature of politics, but its irrefutable that Trump refused to grant Biden's tranistion team access to information about what was happening at the border.

Since Reagan's time we've let the border become a partisan issue. People can blame the dems, and it's true that new and first generation immigrant-americans trend D, but that's unchanged from even before 1900. And I was in DC when W tried rationality, and it wasn't the Dems who opposed it.

It shouldn't be a political issue, it needs to be an issue with getting children home to be reunited with their families, this is disturbing on so many levels and to use it for political gain or being dismissed because it is your guy in charge is wrong.

 

[bendog]

These poor children are being used and abused by smugglers and cartels as a direct result of Biden's border policies. I hope the liberals that support this crap have nightmares about what they've done to these kids.

Border crisis: 5 unaccompanied migrant girls found abandoned in Texas

Five abandoned migrant girls, all under the age of 7, were discovered Sunday by a Texas farmer on his land in Quemado, near the Rio Grande River.

www.foxnews.com

Did you care when it was going on under Trump?

No.

You didn't.

Really? Your only response to children abandoned in the desert is, "Well . . . TRUMP! So there!"?

That definitely establishes that you don't care about illegal immigrant children now, then, or ever . . . unless you can use them for politics. That moral high horse you just tried to climb onto dumped your ass into the dirt.

Sorry. When I read about your newly found outrage, it comes off as hypocritical.

But please, keep insisting you care what happens with these kids. I've made my statement in other threads - this is on Biden now. He owns it now and he has to fix it.

And you? You've just face planted in the dirt. As usual. You didn't care before, you were fine with kids being raped and trafficked in the Mexican camps while they waited for a hearing. Your outrage is hollow.

There just weren't as many children raped and trafficked. Now there are tens of thousands. They are lured by Biden. It's a waste of time being outraged over Hispanic children raped and trafficked. They are meat on hoof. Commodities like cattle or pork bellies. The only thing possible for us to do is keep them out of here as much as possible.

I like this new narrative they're trying to deflect to, that the right "didn't care about illegals when Trump was President." Our concerns about illegal immigrants were a big reason WHY Trump was President.

Keep spinning. No one believes your crap, otherwise you would have been angered over the abuses that occured under Trump. You even defended it. Your concern was limited to keeping them out so take your self rightious lies someplace else.

Even assuming Biden has some fault in encouraging those who came to the border since Jan 24th, it's not like the people on the border in Mexico weren't being exploited.

 

[bendog]

can you please cite the changes he made that altered the baseline issue that still exists today? this comes across as excusing your side/boy because you don't like where it could go.

I'll give any new president (yes, even Trump) a break at the beginning - do you?

Policies that altered the baseline issue - I would say the "the remain in Mexico" policy that created a huge number of people bottlenecked at the border waiting for a scarce number of daily appointments. When you add the new surge to that, you have crisis.

Why is it that Presidents will take credit for what are perceived as successes and blame the previous guy for failures? It seems each of them do this silly ploy.

Well, the nature of politics, but its irrefutable that Trump refused to grant Biden's tranistion team access to information about what was happening at the border.

Since Reagan's time we've let the border become a partisan issue. People can blame the dems, and it's true that new and first generation immigrant-americans trend D, but that's unchanged from even before 1900. And I was in DC when W tried rationality, and it wasn't the Dems who opposed it.

It shouldn't be a political issue, it needs to be an issue with getting children home to be reunited with their families, this is disturbing on so many levels and to use it for political gain or being dismissed because it is your guy in charge is wrong.

Reuniting children was never an issue when Reagan and W tried rationality. And I wasn't being political beyond noting that the gop supported neither. Although the dems didn't like Reagan's proposal of ID. I don't think the dems offered much of an opinion on W's try, as they were sort of standing around counting the knife wounds repbulicans left in his toga, at the time.

My post was agreeing with you, in that so long as either or both parties seek some "gotcha" advantage it's futile beyond, like Iceberg posted Exec Actions.

 

[bendog]

hope this quote shit works.

what i am seeing is you can't "define" the actual difference as yes, there are many types. but seeking asylum is a specific target. a political opponent in china may ask for asylum because if he goes back to china, he dies. that is what it is for and no that should not be stopped.

Agree.

but it shouldn't be abused either. if you are coming over here because you want a better job or life - great. get in the much longer line. i'm sorry it's a long one and i'm sorry your country sucks and you wish to leave but that is your situation and the US as a country is horrible at how to handle this.

so far i agree.

True, but again - isn't that abuse sorted out in the courts? Most asylum requests get denied.

but what happened is they simply started saying "asylum" because the line was shorter. the democrats encouraged it because they found a way around what they view as an obstacle. i agree it's an obstacle but i disagree going around it with redefining things is a valid move to be allowed.

Maybe or maybe in some cases they genuinely are in fear for their lives. There is no question that some of those nations suffer from corrupt or weak central governments, rampant gang and cartel violence and violence towards women who have few legal rights or recourses to end it. So if they're trying for asylum it might not just be because "the line is shorter" - can you blame them? I don't see it as being "redefined" because the courts determine the outcome. It's like I can go and ask for food stamps and claim to be poor - but I'm not redefining poverty, and they will refuse me.

to me this is where we are. you seem to be leaning to "who cares what we call them, let them in" - but i'm not sure so i'll wait for you to say.

I think that's where maybe you're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying they have a right to apply for asylum - but that doesn't mean they have a right to GET asylum. That is determined by a judge who is familiar with immigration law. And I'm fine with that. That's not "let the in" - that's "let's follow the laws and procedures set up for granting asylum".

requesting asylum is a specific term for a specific process. not a magic word to make the long line of immigration disappear.

We actually AGREE on that - I think we just come at it from different angles

The quote system sucks. I had to make multiple attempts to fix mine.

except most who request it never show. but to the main point, why have the 2 lines if with one word they come on in?

we can't make it that easy.

appreciate stickng to topic. Thank you

Except...most who request it DO show up for their hearings.

Most Released Families Attend Immigration Court Hearings

trac.syr.edu

Nearly all asylum-seekers show up for court, data shows

More than a decade of data show that asylum-seekers and other migrants facing immigration hearings appear in court at least 83% of the time, with some rates as high as 96%. A new report challenges what one expert called a "pernicious myth."

www.tucsonsentinel.com

Just because there are multiple lines doesn't mean some won't try to get in through the wrong line. That's human nature. But it's easily fixed when they get their hearing and the merits of their case are examined.

How would you propose altering it in such a way that would not create hardship for genuine (or those who believe they are genuine) asylum seekers?

i have more time to get back to this one and wanted to.

first - i believe we agree on who can ask for asylum. simply living in a dangerous country isn't enough. it is spelled out here.
Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and Protection under the Convention Against Torture (Form I589): Asylum is for individuals who fear they will be harmed if they return to their home country. You
must show that the harm you face is because of your race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or
membership in a particular social group. Normally you must apply for asylum within one year of
coming to the United States. If you have an aggravated felony, you will not be eligible for asylum.
Usually being afraid of returning to your home country because of general violence is not sufficient to
win asylum. Withholding of removal is for people who cannot qualify for asylum because of their
immigration history or criminal record. You have to show that there is more than a 50% chance that
you will be seriously harmed if sent back to your country. Finally, protection under the Convention
Against Torture is for people who do not qualify for asylum or withholding and who can show that they
will be tortured or killed if deported to their home country, by their home government or with their
government’s permission or knowledge.
------
so to properly ask for it - you must meet these conditions.

in 2010 - 940 people from s. america were granted asylum. while i don't know how many requested, a total of ~42k applied in 2010.

Facts and Statistics | US Asylum

www.shautsova.com

today, more than 1 million are requesting it.

More than 1 Million Migrants Are in the U.S. Seeking Asylum

A federal report reveals that 1.15 million asylum-seeking people are already living in the U.S., as Biden promises to welcome more migrants.

www.breitbart.com

There were 1,148,416 pending asylum cases in the United States — at a minimum. If those applicants were a state, they would be the 43rd largest in the United States, ahead of Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, the Dakotas, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming.
-----
now these are "pending" and not all requested in 2020 - but you can see we're in a backlog from hell that will never get caught up. why?

cause in 2019 and 2020 - approximately 400k requested it. this is about a 50% increase over 2010 and growing. asylum requests doubled in 2017 and didn't drop at all til 2020.

now to even apply for asylum they must go through the immigration process anyway. as of july 2018, 733k cases backlogged. 721 days at the time to even get a hearing. reference

now - to fact check the article in reference that up to 96% do in fact show up. i look at immigration reform.

It appears that both of these claims come from the same source: a 2018 study by the American Immigration Council (AIC). The AIC is a radical open-borders organization that aggressively campaigns for eliminating essentially all measures that combat illegal immigration. Therefore, any figures from this organization should be examined with skepticism, and for good reason – these two figures are wrong.

so - no. they do not outside of this one study that appears heavily biased. so - to be fair, do we have any other study to validate this study? if a high number do in fact show, more than 1 study should illustrate that. the article itself breaks down the issues in the calculation of the number.

what i hope *is* clear is we have a backlog from hell, waiting time for even a trial at all is a year and a half, and people requesting to get into this process is at an all time high over the last 3 years and rising.

while i agree some valid people looking for asylum may be caught in this net - it's a trap of our own creation by allowing it to happen and our courts are backlogged due to the inaction of our congress on the matter. we've created our own firestorm and don't know how to put it out. but it would also appear a group of thousands of immigrants looking for a better life simply don't quality for requesting asylum. even if they do - they must go through the immigration process anyway.

so. how do we stop the abuse of a process that is tearing up our court system and still remain fair to said process and immigration strategies for our country?

changes would have to come. period. they should come from congress, but they are not doing it. so presidents write EO's like michael jordon handing out autographs at a basketball convention and we tear up a country trying to do something because our congress won't.

we need to stop bitching at the president for this, agree to short term moves many simply won't like to stop the bleeding, then fix the problem in congress where it should be fixed.

on an alternative note, it wouldn't be just impossible to triple or even quadruple the number of administrative hearings on amnesty.

 

[Rogue AI]

Those kids were screwed from the start. Seeing as they are only brown kids, cages is the best they can hope for in a Biden administration. Those kids need to be sent back where they belong, their home countries, with their parents. Unaccompanied minors offer absolutely no benefit to the US, none should be accepted, they should all be sent back home.