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

[Pommer]

These are not legal citizens. And so many of them disappear into the country never to be seen again.

They keep their head down and pay dem taxes and don’t make a peep?
What’s the “complaint”?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

They keep their head down and pay dem taxes and don’t make a peep?
What’s the “complaint”?

They took that job in the lettuce field that I have been trying to get for years now.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think we have room to increase staffing to a point, but at a certain point we'll have to entertain other options.

We have a $25 Billion dollar per year budget for Border Protection.

Canada's budget for such matters is $1.5 billion over 5 years.


Like I noted before, I think we owe it to certain Central/South American countries to fix some of the issues we helped create. (that can be via some additional foreign aid or some sort of temporary subsidy arrangement, those decisions are above my pay grade)
But I do think some reasonable cutoffs need to be established for such endeavors.

I don't think it can be a permanent arrangement where "Because you wronged us back in the 70's and 80's, either give us money to fix all of our problems or forever deal with a never-ending flow of migrants"

I'm going to be honest @ThatRobGuy , I understand the sentiment of "we should fix the places they're coming from" because that's been a left wing mainstay of their narrative for 30 years by now. It's a feel good help the world narrative that sounds "right".

Let's be honest though...it won't happen.

Let's imagine a nation we literally have total control over...like Iraq, or Afghanistan. We have elections, reforms, infrastructure being built, and the moment we step away it all falls apart. We stink at nation building.

We can't fix these nations to the point where they won't see coming here as a better option. Period.

1. We don't have total control over these nations. Anything we donate as aid is fundamentally under their control.

2. These governments are extremely corrupt. Guatemala is the perfect example, as 3 of the last 4 presidents were deposed by international corruption investigations. They take aid
....spend it on themselves.

3. Sending their poor here is the easiest, fastest, and most effective solution to 90% of their poverty issues. If they can't educate, feed, or provide basic services to 30% of the population....encouraging that population to leave works.

We aren't fixing anything there....we're struggling to fix it here...

But I understand the sentiment and optimism.

 

[Hans Blaster]

They took that job in the lettuce field that I have been trying to get for years now.

I had a job in a carrot field, but they paid me like an off-the-books immigrant, so I quit.

 

[ralliann]

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?

Because they are not needed. Most are false cases. we know this. We need to change it back to remain in mexico, etc. until a decision. That will stop all this like it did before.

 

[ralliann]

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.

This I think is why they want all these judges. What are they going to consider legit reasons for asylum? There are judges today that apply what think. Look at the Colorado court.

 

[KCfromNC]

I disagree with the campaign accusation that they are unwilling to do it for campaign reasons. Remember when Trump and the Republicans tried to do something

Sure, but I think we all know a blanket ban on people of a certain religion wasn't going anywhere but was instead just cynical pandering to the fringes of the GOP's base.

 

[wing2000]

There are judges today that apply what think. Look at the Colorado court.

"What think"?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm going to be honest @ThatRobGuy , I understand the sentiment of "we should fix the places they're coming from" because that's been a left wing mainstay of their narrative for 30 years by now. It's a feel good help the world narrative that sounds "right".

Let's be honest though...it won't happen.

Let's imagine a nation we literally have total control over...like Iraq, or Afghanistan. We have elections, reforms, infrastructure being built, and the moment we step away it all falls apart. We stink at nation building.

We can't fix these nations to the point where they won't see coming here as a better option. Period.

1. We don't have total control over these nations. Anything we donate as aid is fundamentally under their control.

2. These governments are extremely corrupt. Guatemala is the perfect example, as 3 of the last 4 presidents were deposed by international corruption investigations. They take aid
....spend it on themselves.

3. Sending their poor here is the easiest, fastest, and most effective solution to 90% of their poverty issues. If they can't educate, feed, or provide basic services to 30% of the population....encouraging that population to leave works.

We aren't fixing anything there....we're struggling to fix it here...

But I understand the sentiment and optimism.

I'm not referring to same kind of Iraq-style nation building in this instance.

I'm referring to some of the economic damage the US had a direct hand in, in the region, in the 70's and 80's and set off some pretty negative trajectories.
(for instance, helping sponsor coups to get US-friendly puppet leaders installed so our private corporations could exploit the region and allowed corporate raiders to take control of a lot of their resources)

If you look at a history of the company called "United Fruit", that highlights the pattern that was used.

At one point, we were installing leaders who sold some of those countries' public utilities and their postal services to US private corps, and the we charged them a hefty mark-up.

You can imagine, if (hypothetically) Canada came in, used their intelligence agency to sponsor a coup against the guy we voted for, and their replacement sold our utility companies and post offices to private Canadian companies, and we started paying double & triple for all of those services, and allowed Canadian interests to buy up all of our companies and cut our salaries...

...and every time (for 2 decades) we'd try to vote someone else in who promised to put things back the way they were before, that person would die in a mysterious plane crash, or have a mysterious brake failure on their car, or fall victim to an "untimely" house fire...(and it came out that the aforementioned intelligence agency was linked to those happenings... we'd probably be demanding some sort of compensation or reparation for that.

The past relationships between the US and Central/South America is very different than what went on in the Middle East.


There's a difference between fixing someone's house who burned it down themselves vs. helping to fix someone's house that was burned in a fire for which we supplied the matches and gasoline and provided trained the arsonist.

 

[Laodicean60]

If you look at a history of the company called "United Fruit", that highlights the pattern that was used.

I'm off topic but thank you for this. We need better oversight of our corporations. From wiki United Fruit:

"In March 2007 Chiquita Brands pleaded guilty in a United States Federal court to aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, when it admitted to the payment of more than $1.7 million to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a group that the United States has labeled a terrorist organization since 2001. Under a plea agreement, Chiquita Brands agreed to pay $25 million in restitution and damages to the families of victims of the AUC. The AUC had been paid to protect the company's interest in the region.[49]

In addition to monetary payments, Chiquita has also been accused of smuggling weapons (3,000 AK-47s) to the AUC and in assisting the AUC in smuggling drugs to Europe.[50] Chiquita Brands admitted that they paid AUC operatives to silence union organizers and intimidate farmers into selling only to Chiquita. In the plea agreement, the Colombian government let Chiquita Brands keep the names of U.S. Citizens who brokered this agreement with the AUC secret, in exchange for relief to 390 families.

Despite calls from Colombian authorities and human rights organizations to extradite the U.S. citizens responsible for war crimes and aiding a terrorist organization, the U.S. Department of Justice has refused to grant the request, citing 'conflicts of law'. As with other high-profile cases involving wrongdoing by American companies abroad, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Justice are very careful to hand over any American citizen to be tried under another country's legal system, so for the time being Chiquita Brands International avoided a catastrophic scandal, and instead walked away with a humiliating defeat in court and eight of its employees fired.[51]"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm off topic but thank you for this. We need better oversight of our corporations. From wiki United Fruit:

"In March 2007 Chiquita Brands pleaded guilty in a United States Federal court to aiding and abetting a terrorist organization, when it admitted to the payment of more than $1.7 million to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a group that the United States has labeled a terrorist organization since 2001. Under a plea agreement, Chiquita Brands agreed to pay $25 million in restitution and damages to the families of victims of the AUC. The AUC had been paid to protect the company's interest in the region.[49]

In addition to monetary payments, Chiquita has also been accused of smuggling weapons (3,000 AK-47s) to the AUC and in assisting the AUC in smuggling drugs to Europe.[50] Chiquita Brands admitted that they paid AUC operatives to silence union organizers and intimidate farmers into selling only to Chiquita. In the plea agreement, the Colombian government let Chiquita Brands keep the names of U.S. Citizens who brokered this agreement with the AUC secret, in exchange for relief to 390 families.

Despite calls from Colombian authorities and human rights organizations to extradite the U.S. citizens responsible for war crimes and aiding a terrorist organization, the U.S. Department of Justice has refused to grant the request, citing 'conflicts of law'. As with other high-profile cases involving wrongdoing by American companies abroad, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Department of Justice are very careful to hand over any American citizen to be tried under another country's legal system, so for the time being Chiquita Brands International avoided a catastrophic scandal, and instead walked away with a humiliating defeat in court and eight of its employees fired.[51]"

...so you can imagine, if that's the kind of stuff they're pulling when the US government is not on board with those activities anymore. Just imagine the kind of stuff going on when those types of "silencing the opposition" measures were being not only condoned, but partially sponsored by the US government.

Operation Condor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1954 Guatemalan coup d'état - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm not referring to same kind of Iraq-style nation building in this instance.

I'm referring to some of the economic damage the US had a direct hand in, in the region, in the 70's and 80's and set off some pretty negative trajectories.
(for instance, helping sponsor coups to get US-friendly puppet leaders installed so our private corporations could exploit the region and allowed corporate raiders to take control of a lot of their resources)
View attachment 341278

Not shown on the map: Our sanctions on Venezuela that aren't making things better.

If you look at a history of the company called "United Fruit", that highlights the pattern that was used.

FunFact: That's where the term "banana republic" comes from.

 

[ralliann]

"What think"?

Like the Colorado court "think". Taking what they think should be law, and making it law.

 

[Laodicean60]

Like the Colorado court "think". Taking what they think should be law, and making it law.

It is an old law for the states to use.

 

[Arcangl86]

Like the Colorado court "think". Taking what they think should be law, and making it law.

What part of the reasoning did you think was flawed?

 

[ralliann]

What part of the reasoning did you think was flawed?

LAW

 

[Arcangl86]

LAW

Which part? The whole thing is publicly available. If you think they made a mistake applying the law, where?

 

[ralliann]

Which part? The whole thing is publicly available. If you think they made a mistake applying the law, where?

The constitution. They just decided he he was guilty of insurrection, despite being aquitted. This same thing is going to happen with asylum cases, and liberals are going to defend it, just like the Colorado decision is.

 

[Belk]

Sure, but I think we all know a blanket ban on people of a certain religion wasn't going anywhere but was instead just cynical pandering to the fringes of the GOP's base.

I am not sure how fringe it was. Seems more likely a goodly number supported it.

 

[childeye 2]

I am not sure how fringe it was. Seems more likely a goodly number supported it.

The false premise that rigorous vetting and screening was not happening during the Obama administration was a false narrative that created a false reality which a lot of people fell for.