bendog
Diamond Member
I'm not sure Iceberg was claiming Biden's policies inhumane while ignoring Trump's intentional inhumanity. I think he was wrong is challagning for proof that Trump intentionally acted illegally and immorally in fashioning a system to deter illegal (and legal asylum) immigration.do you see me bitching at biden for every single thing wrong in the world? no. you don't.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.
i liked the "remain in mexico" myself. immigration has a path to citizenship. if it isn't working, fix it don't go around it. asylum is for people with political issues who will likely be killed if they are returned home.
I did not. The problem with remain in Mexico was it was incredibly dangerous to the asylum seekers, violence, rape, and trafficking of women and children were common, as was murder. In addition to dangerous the conditions were squalid and disease-ridden. There was an active effort to prevent journalists and American immigration legal advisors from gaining access as well.
I can't understand how, if you are complaining about the treatment of illegal immigrants on this side of the border, you are ok with it on that side of the border. It makes no sense to me.
a·sy·lum
the protection granted by a nation to someone who has left their native country as a political refugee.
were the ones at the border political refugees or did we expand on that definition in order to get what you felt was right? bypassing process / law because you feel strongly about something doesn't make it right - it simply diminishes the point of the law itself rendering it useless.
It has nothing to do with what "I feel was right" - it has to do with our law which recognizes 5 grounds of persecution for asylum applicants.
They must demonstrate persecution based on any one of these grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
IMO personal opinion it should be expanded to gender/gender identity given the extreme persecution gay men face in many parts of the world...but either way, asylum is not just granted to political refugees. In fact - our asylum law was based on what happened when we turned away Jewish refugees in 1939 (it's in my signature and has been for years because I think it's incredibly important).
loopholes i believe they are called. people love to use them, hate them used against themselves.
so - how many immigrants were trying to seek "asylum" in order to get around immigration policy?
It doesn't matter why they are trying to seek asylum. It's their legal right to seek it. That doesn't mean they'll get it and most are denied. But until they have their hearings - they are legal asylum seekers.
I'm not sure what damage would happen if asylum seekers were allowed, but we should not release them as we did before Trump. If we expedited hearings, and simply sent the vast maj back because they don't qualify as political refugees, then we wouldn't be encouraging people to leave home, walk thousands of miles while helpless.