Mayorkas tells Border Patrol agents that ‘above 85%’ of illegal immigrants released into US: sources

[Valletta]

"And I will tell you that when individuals are released, they are released into immigration enforcement proceedings. They are on alternatives to detention. And we have returned or removed a record number of individuals. We are enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. "

Mayorkas tells Border Patrol agents that ‘above 85%’ of illegal immigrants released into US: sources

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted on Monday to Border Patrol agents that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are being released into the United States.

www.yahoo.com

This man has created a disaster. Impeach him.

 

[Pommer]

"And I will tell you that when individuals are released, they are released into immigration enforcement proceedings. They are on alternatives to detention. And we have returned or removed a record number of individuals. We are enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. "

Mayorkas tells Border Patrol agents that ‘above 85%’ of illegal immigrants released into US: sources

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted on Monday to Border Patrol agents that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are being released into the United States.

www.yahoo.com

This man has created a disaster. Impeach him.

“Due process” is treasonous now?

 

[iluvatar5150]

"And I will tell you that when individuals are released, they are released into immigration enforcement proceedings. They are on alternatives to detention. And we have returned or removed a record number of individuals. We are enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. "

Mayorkas tells Border Patrol agents that ‘above 85%’ of illegal immigrants released into US: sources

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted on Monday to Border Patrol agents that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are being released into the United States.

www.yahoo.com

This man has created a disaster. Impeach him.

From the article:

"What is a magnet is the fact that the time in between an encounter of an individual at the border and their final ruling in their immigration case can sometimes take six or more years. That is a magnet, which is why precisely why I am working with Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate to deliver a solution for the American people, to deliver a fix to an immigration system that everyone agrees is broken, and that is long overdue," he said.​

​

Why aren't Republicans hammering on this? Why aren't they trying to beef up the asylum/immigration courts to handle more cases and reduce the bottlenecks?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This man has created a disaster. Impeach him.

I don't know that it's fair to say he's created a disaster. The governments of Mexico and some Central American countries have largely created this disaster (and blame where it's due, some of our past meddling in Latin America has had a hand in creating these residual negative situations as well, the US did have a direct hand in creating poverty in some of those countries)

A "border disaster" is pretty much the organic product of a situation where you have one really rich country, that shares a border with the gateway to the "impoverished world". If the US and Canada swapped territories, Canadians would be left scratching their heads trying to find the best way to handle it - with all of the same infighting pertaining to the "idealistic softies" (unpragmatic, yet well-intentioned) vs. the "hard-nosed nationalists" (more pragmatic, yet sometimes finding themselves in the company of xenophobes)

It's a conundrum that very few countries have to deal with, unfortunately we're one of those few countries.

This isn't an issue that island nations like Australia or NZ have to deal with, nor is it a problem that nations that are neighbors with only other countries that are relatively on the same playing field.

For instance, Australia doesn't have to worry about illegal immigration unless someone is the best swimmer in the world...and Norway doesn't have to worry about Swedish and Finnish people trying to sneak into their country (because in terms of benefits and standard of living, there's not a huge difference)

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't know that it's fair to say he's created a disaster. The governments of Mexico and some Central American countries have largely created this disaster (and blame where it's due, some of our past meddling in Latin America has had a hand in creating these residual negative situations as well, the US did have a direct hand in creating poverty in some of those countries)

A "border disaster" is pretty much the organic product of a situation where you have one really rich country, that shares a border with the gateway to the "impoverished world". If the US and Canada swapped territories, Canadians would be left scratching their heads trying to find the best way to handle it - with all of the same infighting pertaining to the "idealistic softies" (unpragmatic, yet well-intentioned) vs. the "hard-nosed nationalists" (more pragmatic, yet sometimes finding themselves in the company of xenophobes)

It's a conundrum that very few countries have to deal with, unfortunately we're one of those few countries.

This isn't an issue that island nations like Australia or NZ have to deal with, nor is it a problem that nations that are neighbors with only other countries that are relatively on the same playing field.

For instance, Australia doesn't have to worry about illegal immigration unless someone is the best swimmer in the world...and Norway doesn't have to worry about Swedish and Finnish people trying to sneak into their country (because in terms of benefits and standard of living, there's not a huge difference)

It's sad that this is all it takes to undermine most of the right's complaints about the border.

Granted, there is some argument to be made that Trump's overly antagonistic attitudes and policies towards immigrant were a deterrent, but then the question becomes whether Republicans really want us to eliminate asylum (like he was on his way towards doing) and act as borderline racists towards anybody from south of the US.

 

[Valletta]

It's sad that this is all it takes to undermine most of the right's complaints about the border.

Granted, there is some argument to be made that Trump's overly antagonistic attitudes and policies towards immigrant were a deterrent, but then the question becomes whether Republicans really want us to eliminate asylum (like he was on his way towards doing) and act as borderline racists towards anybody from south of the US.

Trump's wife is an immigrant. Conservatives are against ILLEGAL immigration. Trump has spoken about the rich history of immigration, and is pro-immigrant. As Trump has stressed, criminals should not be able to go ahead of those who apply legally to become American citizens. He realizes we need people who believe in the American dream, and are willing to work toward it--not those who hate America. Joe Biden's policies show a lack of compassion for immigrants, Joe's policies promote sex trafficking and drugs and criminals. Remember his administration lost track of 80,000 children. Joe is not seeing that all of the children are checked to make sure they are related to the adults who accompany them, he is not seeing that we get DNA samples of all of those who are turned back. Joe has shown racist tendencies, his standing against the busing of black children to white schools is an historical fact, but I think while there might be some racism in his policies it is more about the left gaining control by first creating chaos. And chaos is what we have. We need to keep those who are willing to work hard, whether it is those who excel at our universities or those who labor to seek the American dream. And we need to expel the child traffickers, the cartel members, and those non-citizens who preach genocide.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Trump's wife is an immigrant.

From what I recall, there were some credible allegations going around that she violated the terms of her visa when she came her which would’ve made her…. what’s the word???… it’s on the tip of my tongue…

Conservatives are against ILLEGAL immigration.

yes! illegal! thank you!

Also, that is demonstrably untrue. If you all are only against illegal immigration, why did Trump slash the number of asylees we accept and why did he screw up the SIV process for vetting people coming from Afghanistan? Those are both legal pathways.

Trump has spoken about the rich history of immigration, and is pro-immigrant.

Sure he is, if the immigrants in question are European underwear models and/or ski instructors.

As Trump has stressed, criminals should not be able to go ahead of those who apply legally to become American citizens.

And Trump made it harder to get here legally.

He realizes we need people who believe in the American dream, and are willing to work toward it--

Hiking a thousand miles across the jungle and desert is about as “American Dream” as you can get, but Trump has consistently derided these migrants as violent criminals.

not those who hate America.

I guess it must be only the native-born citizens who hate America whom he lets into his club.

We need to keep those who are willing to work hard, whether it is those who excel at our universities or those who labor to seek the American dream.

Like Dreamers?

And we need to expel the child traffickers, the cartel members, and those non-citizens who preach genocide.

Yeah, that part is fine, but that’s not what Trump’s immigration policy did.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

​

Why aren't Republicans hammering on this? Why aren't they trying to beef up the asylum/immigration courts to handle more cases and reduce the bottlenecks?

Because they have to Impeach Hunter Biden or something.

 

[rjs330]

From the article:

"What is a magnet is the fact that the time in between an encounter of an individual at the border and their final ruling in their immigration case can sometimes take six or more years. That is a magnet, which is why precisely why I am working with Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate to deliver a solution for the American people, to deliver a fix to an immigration system that everyone agrees is broken, and that is long overdue," he said.​

​

Why aren't Republicans hammering on this? Why aren't they trying to beef up the asylum/immigration courts to handle more cases and reduce the bottlenecks

Why would the Republicans be for process funding so we can process more illegals and let them stay in the country. What we need to spend money on is shutting down the border so they do y get in in the first place.

The Democrats solution is to let as many people in as possible and process them as quickly and efficiently as possible so they can disappear into the interior.

This is insane. Spend the money to shut the spigot off.

 

[rjs330]

It's sad that this is all it takes to undermine most of the right's complaints about the border.

Granted, there is some argument to be made that Trump's overly antagonistic attitudes and policies towards immigrant were a deterrent, but then the question becomes whether Republicans really want us to eliminate asylum (like he was on his way towards doing) and act as borderline racists towards anybody from south of the US.

The Republicans too have failed to act. We can't just point fingers at the Democrats anymore. While some Republicans are standing up many still are not.

I'm not sure Trump was trying to end asylum as much as he was trying to alter it. I think most of us conservatives are for asylum for those that really need it. But that has to be shown to be valid first before being allowed into the country.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Why aren't Republicans hammering on this? Why aren't they trying to beef up the asylum/immigration courts to handle more cases and reduce the bottlenecks?

Ooo! Ooo! I know!

House Republican says he won't accept a border deal because it may help Biden politically

It's not the first time Rep. Troy Nehls has seemed to say the quiet part of loud: In December he suggested impeachment was about giving "ammo" to Trump.

www.businessinsider.in

 

[rjs330]

Also, that is demonstrably untrue. If you all are only against illegal immigration, why did Trump slash the number of asylees we accept and why did he screw up the SIV process for vetting people coming from Afghanistan? Those are both legal pathways.

Because we have so many illegals here. And what is wrong with cutting back on the number if asylees? We need to fix those legal pathways so people need to prove the validity of their claims first.

And Trump made it harder to get here legally. It's far to easy to get here illegally. Make it almost impossible to get here illegally and and make the legal immigration

If by legally you mean anyone walking up to an agent claiming asylum and getting in then it's good he was more restrictive.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Why would the Republicans be for process funding so we can process more illegals and let them stay in the country. What we need to spend money on is shutting down the border so they do y get in in the first place.

They’re allowed to request asylum. They’re allowed to be here while they’re waiting for their asylum claims to be heard. The “process” is the adjudication of those claims. If you want the ones with bogus asylum claims gone, why on earth would you want to drag out the adjudication of their claims and let them stay here longer?

The Democrats solution is to let as many people in as possible and process them as quickly and efficiently as possible so they can disappear into the interior.

The “process” is what lets us remove them.

This is insane. Spend the money to shut the spigot off.

What’s insane is you guys arguing for starving the process that would help do what you want.

I'm not sure Trump was trying to end asylum as much as he was trying to alter it.

I misspoke - it was refugees he capped, not asylees.

If he was trying to “alter” it, why did he slash the cap by 80%

I think most of us conservatives are for asylum for those that really need it. But that has to be shown to be valid first before being allowed into the country.

He cut the number of refugees we accept by 80%

Because we have so many illegals here.

So because we have illegals, we can’t accept refugees or people who worked for the US in a war zone?

And what is wrong with cutting back on the number if asylees? We need to fix those legal pathways so people need to prove the validity of their claims first.

They already do have to prove the validity of their claim.

If by legally you mean anyone walking up to an agent claiming asylum and getting in then it's good he was more restrictive.

That’s not how you get granted asylum.

 

[Arcangl86]

Also, that is demonstrably untrue. If you all are only against illegal immigration, why did Trump slash the number of asylees we accept and why did he screw up the SIV process for vetting people coming from Afghanistan? Those are both legal pathways.

Also don't forget that he wanted to eliminate both the diversity lottery and family reunification visas, which of course happens to be the two main ways to immigrate besides employment visas.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

America for Americans!

 

[rjs330]

They’re allowed to request asylum. They’re allowed to be here while they’re waiting for their asylum claims to be heard. The “process” is the adjudication of those claims. If you want the ones with bogus asylum claims gone, why on earth would you want to drag out the adjudication of their claims and let them stay here longer?

They shouldn't be allowed to come here and just claim asylum. They should claim asylum in the first country they come to. They shouldn't be trapsing through several countries just to show up on our border and claim asylum.

The “process” is what lets us remove them.

Not if they are being released into the country. I think we might find more support for the process people if they were all at the border and people had to wait there to be processed before being allowed in. And I mean fully processed and found to be legally in need of asylum. Then we'd be happy to have them here.

But that's not what is proposed. The proposal is to still allow them here on their own to await the process.

He cut the number of refugees we accept by 80%

You mean the number of asylum seekers that we let in?

So because we have illegals, we can’t accept refugees or people who worked for the US in a war zone?

Yes, that why we shouldn't allow so many illegals. There is a consequence to those actions.

If you want more refugees who worked for us or more asylees then stop the illegals and make room for them.

They already do have to prove the validity of their claim.

Not before being allowed in then disappearing.

That’s not how you get granted asylum.

That's how you get allowed in.

 

[rjs330]

America for Americans!

Who else in America for? France for the French. Australia for the Australians, Mexico for the Mexicans. Canada for the Canadians. That's how all countries work.

 

[rjs330]

And now these sketchy immigrants are being placed into schools while the students are being kicked out. American kids being kicked out of schools to shelter immigrants who are here claiming asylum.

The mayor said:

Adams and several other mayors of sanctuary cities, including Denver and Chicago, requested additional funding from the White House and Congress, as well as coordination with state and local governments, to deal with migrants. Denver has received more than 34,000 migrants, and Democratic Mayor Mike Johnston said “cities will have to look at dramatically reducing the amount of services we offer” due to the migrants.

Adams announced a 5% budget cut for all city services in September, but migrants are still straining the city resources, he said at a September event.

Entire NYC High School Goes Temporarily Virtual To Make Room For Roughly 2,000 Illegal Migrants

An entire New York high school will temporarily go virtual to make room for roughly 2,000 migrants, it announced Tuesday.

dailycaller.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

Not if they are being released into the country.

Being released into the country is roughly analogous to being out on bail. You still have a trial/hearing to decide your ultimate fate. What I’m arguing for is more staff so folks are “on bail” for less time. You seem to think that’s a bad thing.

You mean the number of asylum seekers that we let in?

No, I meant refugees, which is why I made the distinction you left out. There’s a cap on the number of refugees we allow in every year, while afaik there is no cap on asylum grants. Trump slashed the refugee cap.

If you want more refugees who worked for us or more asylees then stop the illegals and make room for them.

We have room.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Granted, there is some argument to be made that Trump's overly antagonistic attitudes and policies towards immigrant were a deterrent, but then the question becomes whether Republicans really want us to eliminate asylum (like he was on his way towards doing) and act as borderline racists towards anybody from south of the US.

That's sort of the conundrum I was describing.

On one hand, there are pragmatic cases to be made for both
A) limiting the flow of immigration and keep the the process more controlled and predictable
B) enforcing some stricter requirements on asylum...there was always something of an "unwritten rule" or understanding of the the concept of "first safe country", as without it, you end up with a situation where people invoke asylum claims for things other than political persecution, and end up shopping around for which county offers the best economic benefits.

On the other hand, it's tough to push for either of those positions without being perceived as being on the "same side" as the actual racists who merely just want to "keep the Mexicans out".

...you end up with the situation David Frum (from The Atlantic) wrote about when he said:
If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do.

If you look at public polling on some of the immigration topics

There seems to be enough of a consensus on
"We need to increase border security" and "Taking in refugees trying to escape violence and war"

And even with "increase deportations", the percentage of "lean dem" supporting it is a high enough number that would indicate that taking the opposition position may jeopardize moderate votes. (which democrats may need in a close election)