Should The US Accept ANY Asylum Seekers From The South?

[mark46]

Let's take a step back.

Our legal immigration rate has tripled over the past few decades to about a million a year. There are about 12 million illegals in this country looking to become citizens (including almost 2 million DACA kids). Our priority must be these folks, not millions of Central Americans who are trying to enter the country.
If we must, spend the billions to fight the gangs in Central America. As a country, we are willing accept very few Syrians from a war zone. Why should we accept hundreds of thousands from Central America?
==================================
DO WE WANT TO ACCEPT ASYLUM SEEKERS FROM CENTRAL AMERICA
Should we set up a humane, welcoming process for coming in at the legal bridge crossing, and send a few thousand down to help those who want to come in go through the month's long process? Trump's process is terrible. The problem is real. If we were to have a welcoming process for accepting those who feel unsafe at home because of gangs, the line would be very long indeed.

Do we want to accept asylum seekers into the US from Central America? Are those who decided to pay smugglers somehow different then those who remained in Central America?

How many? 20,000, 1 million, only those with kids?

HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE THOSE WHO COME IN ILLEGALLY?
Should they be treated the same as those who try to enter legally across our border, or from their own countries? They tried to sneak in. They will ask for asylum. Should we then give them a preliminary hearing and set them free to wait for their hearing. This seems a fine process for those who want to come in illegally. If they are caught, they have a certain amount of time in the US. We deport them and they can try again.
=======

 

[Brightmoon]

My son’s ex-girlfriend’s father was wealthy and had a lot of privileges in their home country. Including having enough power to tell the police to ignore him when he battered his wife and children . They came to the USA to flee from him . You be the one to tell a woman with children that she has to stay with an abuser that there’s no escape from . And if you do don’t call yourself a Christian

 

[mark46]

Are you OK with accepting a million asylum seekers? BTW, if this family was wealthy, and understood US policy, then this family might seek entry to a different country, perhaps Canada, or Costa Rica.

Let's be clear. I'm look for a policy that works and is acceptable in the US. I would accept unlimited asylum seekers from Central America, and even send troops to assist countries in fighting the gangs or government; but that's me.

And just BTW, short of bribes, it very unlikely that this family will be given asylum under US law and administration priorities.

My son’s ex-girlfriend’s father was wealthy and had a lot of privileges in their home country. Including having enough power to tell the police to ignore him when he battered his wife and children . They came to the USA to flee from him . You be the one to tell a woman with children that she has to stay with an abuser that there’s no escape from . And if you do don’t call yourself a Christian

 

[Always in His Presence]

Absolutely yes. They should go through legal means and join the melting pot.

 

[mark46]

SUGGESTIONS FROM A LIFELONG DEMOCRAT
1) No more asylum seekers would be accepted over the Southern border through December 2024.
2) Everyone who comes over illegally should be charged and deported. There should be a city set up for processing with the parents allowed to be free, with ankle bracelets, until their deporting. The sentence by the immigration judge would include staying in this particular city.
3) Immigration would be reduced to very low levels through December 2024, admitting only those who's skills are needed and the family immigration proposed by Trump.
4) Give Trump the wall, $25B (as fast as he wants to spend it) plus monies for many more immigration judges, plus perhaps have JAG attorneys serve as judges for a couple of years.
5) Implement a process for tracking those who overstay visas, with processes for deportation.
6) Implement severe penalties for employers hiring illegals, with everyone sharing data.
7) Grant permanent status and an immediate path to citizenship for for all DACA folks, and
8) Finally, grant a path to permanent legal status for all illegals in the country who haven't committed a violent crime.
==============
Yes, this is amnesty, but citizenship only for the DACA folk (as Trump suggested).

 

[JIMINZ]

If the Southern Border of Mexico was closed to those attempting to come to the U.S. we would not have a problem.

If the burden was shifted to Mexico, then they would have to deal with the Illegals.

If Mexico did not close their Southern Border, then we should cut Economic ties and place Sanctions on them until they comply.

Why does the problem only belong to the U.S., Mexico has their Southern Border open to anyone who wants to pass through their Country to get to the U.S., why don't Mexico begin to assimilate those Spanish speaking peoples into their own Country?

The open Border policy of every Country in South America should be stopped.
We are trying to keep control of our Border, but the rest of South and Central America as well as Mexico do seem to care.

I heard recently that Canada is now changing their tune as far as Illegals are concerned, where they were accepting everyone who wanted to come in, it is now being shut down.

I wonder why they have decided to change their policy?

 

[Liza B.]

Let's take a step back.

Our legal immigration rate has tripled over the past few decades to about a million a year. There are about 12 million illegals in this country looking to become citizens (including almost 2 million DACA kids). Our priority must be these folks, not millions of Central Americans who are trying to enter the country.
If we must, spend the billions to fight the gangs in Central America. As a country, we are willing accept very few Syrians from a war zone. Why should we accept hundreds of thousands from Central America?
==================================
DO WE WANT TO ACCEPT ASYLUM SEEKERS FROM CENTRAL AMERICA
Should we set up a humane, welcoming process for coming in at the legal bridge crossing, and send a few thousand down to help those who want to come in go through the month's long process? Trump's process is terrible. The problem is real. If we were to have a welcoming process for accepting those who feel unsafe at home because of gangs, the line would be very long indeed.

Do we want to accept asylum seekers into the US from Central America? Are those who decided to pay smugglers somehow different then those who remained in Central America?

How many? 20,000, 1 million, only those with kids?

HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE THOSE WHO COME IN ILLEGALLY?
Should they be treated the same as those who try to enter legally across our border, or from their own countries? They tried to sneak in. They will ask for asylum. Should we then give them a preliminary hearing and set them free to wait for their hearing. This seems a fine process for those who want to come in illegally. If they are caught, they have a certain amount of time in the US. We deport them and they can try again.
=======

You are not getting many responses to these posts and you will not. The truth is, most of the loudest voices on "your side" are really open borders proponents. That is untenable, of course. It wouldn't even be a decade before the problem would be so huge we could never come back from it. Whether they know this or not is the question.

However, as a Democrat, I would urge you to keep asking your fellow Dems these questions, because you are far from alone. A recent YouGov poll indicates that of ALL adults, including Dems, Reps, and Inds, 40% want families detained at the border until they have an immigration or asylum hearing. 20% want them ARRESTED, either just parents or parents and children (!). Only 20% want "catch and release". Approx 20% are uncertain. So combined, 60% want either detention or arrest at the border. Not immigrants given free range. You won't be hearing about this poll anywhere in the MSM.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/rbrysksiud/econTabReport.pdf#page89

 

[Brightmoon]

Are you OK with accepting a million asylum seekers? BTW, if this family was wealthy, and understood US policy, then this family might seek entry to a different country, perhaps Canada, or Costa Rica.

Let's be clear. I'm look for a policy that works and is acceptable in the US. I would accept unlimited asylum seekers from Central America, and even send troops to assist countries in fighting the gangs or government; but that's me.

And just BTW, short of bribes, it very unlikely that this family will be given asylum under US law and administration priorities.

Just to clear things up , my son’s ex has to leave her country with her mother and siblings to get away from her powerfully connected wealthy abusive father.
And no i don’t care if these immigrants come here . I live in New York City and these people are my neighbors. The city information line can translate well over 100 languages. We’re used to it. I get some great recipes from people who don’t come from my background . google translate is great; I was able to have a conversation with someone who spoke mainly Hungarian

Your letting your unreasonable fears and prejudices overcome your reasoning and compassion. The difference between me and you is that I live in a major cosmopolitan city. A sanctuary city!

 

[Vylo]

We need to open up more legal immigration from latin america as well as strengthen our border. We have helped cause much of the mess down there, and their people have a lot to offer us.

 

[ubicaritas]

The US has an historic indifference and amnesia to Latin America and that's the root of the problem. Your average gringo simply doesn't give a crap.

I agree with you that I also would be sending soldiers down to Honduras and El Salvador to end the carnage. But Americans moral convictions all come down to oil and cheap gasoline. We learned all the wrong lessons from Somalia.

 

[mark46]

We need to close the borders and then have amnesty and legal status for the 12 million in the country, and citizenship for the DACA folk. A part of this is a wall. Another part is prosecuting EMPLOYERS who hire illegals.

Neither Democrats or Republicans are currently interested in this approach.

You are not getting many responses to these posts and you will not. The truth is, most of the loudest voices on "your side" are really open borders proponents. That is untenable, of course. It wouldn't even be a decade before the problem would be so huge we could never come back from it. Whether they know this or not is the question.

However, as a Democrat, I would urge you to keep asking your fellow Dems these questions, because you are far from alone. A recent YouGov poll indicates that of ALL adults, including Dems, Reps, and Inds, 40% want families detained at the border until they have an immigration or asylum hearing. 20% want them ARRESTED, either just parents or parents and children (!). Only 20% want "catch and release". Approx 20% are uncertain. So combined, 60% want either detention or arrest at the border. Not immigrants given free range. You won't be hearing about this poll anywhere in the MSM.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/rbrysksiud/econTabReport.pdf#page89

 

[mark46]

I was born in NY and am a lifelong supporter of immigrants.

I want our 12 million illegals to be given legal status, with DACA kids getting citizenship. I want the 100,000+ backlog of asylum cases adjudicated before we accept any more for asylum. We have tripled our immigration rate over the last couple of decades. We can stand a halt for a few years, while we absorb the 12 million.

As Rubio found out, we can have major immigration reform. HOWEVER, the prerequisite is a closed border. Adding hundreds of thousands of new illegals every year just doesn't work.

Just to clear things up , my son’s ex has to leave her country with her mother and siblings to get away from her powerfully connected wealthy abusive father.
And no i don’t care if these immigrants come here . I live in New York City and these people are my neighbors. The city information line can translate well over 100 languages. We’re used to it. I get some great recipes from people who don’t come from my background . google translate is great; I was able to have a conversation with someone who spoke mainly Hungarian

Your letting your unreasonable fears and prejudices overcome your reasoning and compassion. The difference between me and you is that I live in a major cosmopolitan city. A sanctuary city!

 

[Liza B.]

We need to close the borders and then have amnesty and legal status for the 12 million in the country, and citizenship for the DACA folk. A part of this is a wall. Another part is prosecuting EMPLOYERS who hire illegals.

Neither Democrats or Republicans are currently interested in this approach.

I would meet you part of the way. I can go toward citizenship for DACA children who were brought here and now are adults. For the 12 million--that depends. I can meet you on WORKING toward citizenship, if they are law-abiding, etc.

Yes to everything else. So see there? One Republican who is interested in this approach!

 

[Non sequitur]

This discourse is getting dangerously close to trying to reach solutions, without vitriol.

 

[mark46]

I'm missing something.

We need to absorb 12 million illegals now in the country, the vast majority from Latin America. 80% of current immigration is under the family unification program, and the vast majority are form Latin America.

I would argue that we need to reduce immigration from Latin America, and increase immigration from Africa and Asia. A skill-based system accomplish this. This policy would also have the side effect of meeting our large need for technical workers.

We need to open up more legal immigration from latin america as well as strengthen our border. We have helped cause much of the mess down there, and their people have a lot to offer us.

 

[mark46]

Illegals are NOT law abiding. They violate many crimes in order to work in the US. I would certainly agree that those guilty of violent crimes should not bee given legal status. In fact, they should be subject to deportation hearings.

In the end, Democrats need to QUIETLY declare victory. We no longer have the power in the hands of old white men as we did in the 50's. Immigration has changed the demographics of America. Let society absorb this for a decade.

We do need to focus on accepting the 10 million. Beyond that, we MUST deal with problem of the income inequity exacerbated by the recovery. There needs to be lots of vocational training and internship programs, with corporations and local government taking the lead.

I would meet you part of the way. I can go toward citizenship for DACA children who were brought here and now are adults. For the 12 million--that depends. I can meet you on WORKING toward citizenship, if they are law-abiding, etc.

Yes to everything else. So see there? One Republican who is interested in this approach!

 

[mark46]

Yes, the US was interventionist to support US foreign corporate interests. We also used the cold war to justify our foreign intervention.

Where are we now? What reason will cause Americans to accept foreign intervention by the US. Yes, we will use some troops to fight terrorism. We will keep North Korea from keeping effective long range missiles.

HOWEVER, I think that Americans want a breather from foreign wars. The people want to focus on their own lives without worrying about our national guard troops being sent to the Middle East, Europe or Asia.

I have NOT mentioned Latin America for a good reason. Since our founding, Latin American is not foreign. The Monroe Doctrine rightly understood that we must have influence and responsibilities. If our neighbors (especially Central America) are poor and ruled by gangs, the US will suffer. We do need to get a consensus to act.

In the end, I don't think that we can get that consensus to act until we stop fighting wars overseas, and until we secure our borders. Having military action in Central America CANNOT mean millions of refugees flowing into the US.

The US has an historic indifference and amnesia to Latin America and that's the root of the problem. Your average gringo simply doesn't give a crap.

I agree with you that I also would be sending soldiers down to Honduras and El Salvador to end the carnage. But Americans moral convictions all come down to oil and cheap gasoline. We learned all the wrong lessons from Somalia.

 

[ubicaritas]

Yes, the US was interventionist to support US foreign corporate interests. We also used the cold war to justify our foreign intervention.

Where are we now? What reason will cause Americans to accept foreign intervention by the US. Yes, we will use some troops to fight terrorism. We will keep North Korea from keeping effective long range missiles.

HOWEVER, I think that Americans want a breather from foreign wars. The people want to focus on their own lives without worrying about our national guard troops being sent to the Middle East, Europe or Asia.

I have NOT mentioned Latin America for a good reason. Since our founding, Latin American is not foreign. The Monroe Doctrine rightly understood that we must have influence and responsibilities. If our neighbors (especially Central America) are poor and ruled by gangs, the US will suffer. We do need to get a consensus to act.

In the end, I don't think that we can get that consensus to act until we stop fighting wars overseas, and until we secure our borders. Having military action in Central America CANNOT mean millions of refugees flowing into the US.

Absolutely.... this is a case of where the Monroe doctrine could serve progressive ends. The only problem is that many on the Left are infatuated with isolationism just as much as Republicans. I really think is the case where we will learn all the wrong lessons from Hillary's defeat as doves take over the Democrat party.

 

[wing2000]

Absolutely.... this is a case of where the Monroe doctrine could serve progressive ends. The only problem is that many on the Left are infatuated with isolationism just as much as Republicans. I really think is the case where we will learn all the wrong lessons from Hillary's defeat as doves take over the Democrat party.

...we don't necessarily need to put gringo soldiers on Central American soil (though I should point out, we've had a military presence in Honduras since 1982).

We can, however, step up efforts to:
-reduce the influence and power of the cartels
-aggressively go after the cartel financial networks
-step up drug interdiction efforts using the US Coast Guard...and other military assets
-Support in-country efforts to re-patriate deportees from the US
-Support efforts to effectively prosecute criminals in these countries
-Incentivize countries to punish domestic abusers
-From a policy perspective, promote trade and investment initiatives to revive CENAM economies
etc...

All of this, of course, will depend on an Administration and Congress that recognizes that illegal immigration will not improve until we address the push factors that causes Central Americans to leave their countries....

 

[JIMINZ]

When it comes to Amnesty for the 12,000,000 that's twelve Million Illegals in the U.S today, we need to remember, during the Administration of Ronald Ragan we gave Amnesty to 3,000,000 that's three Million, do we continue to grant Amnesty every couple of Decades, why have a Border at all.

What are the Statistics, what are the percentages of the 12,000,000 who are Professional, Collage Educated, Skilled Workers, Uneducated Field Workers.

How many of these 12,000,000 will be given Social Security, Food Stamps, Health Care?

It's not let's be kind and give these people Amnesty, Citizenship, it's hey folks, it costs the American People for every person given Amnesty, that money will be gone it will never be replaced.