Is 400,000 illegals a year over the Southern border a crisis?

[mark46]

I get it.

There are many other crises that are much, much worse: climate change, drug addiction, gun violence, and affordable health care.

And yes, more people overstay their visas than come over the Southern border. And yes, there used to be lots more illegal crossing at the border.

HOWEVER, isn't this the "whataboutism" that we liberals complain about? These 1,000 people a day is a lot. This is more of a problem now because more are women and children.

The horrible conditions in Central America make this situation likely to get worse rather than better.

CONCLUSION
No, the additional need for wall money isn't a "national emergency". He already has lots to spend, especially when one considers the transfer of confiscated drug money and drug interdiction monies.

But the situation in Central America and our Southern border can certainly be reasonably called a crisis.

 

[Steve Petersen]

If 400,000 Republicans were pouring over the border every year, you can bet the Democrats would call it a crisis.

 

[Go Braves]

Nope.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

There are many other crises that are much, much worse: climate change, drug addiction, gun violence, and affordable health care.

Any example you can name is affected by immigration. For example, you'll never have affordable health care if the health care system has to bear the weight of everybody who manages to reach our borders. If we don't have borders, we don't have a country.

 

[Noxot]

the only crisis I see besides human beings trying to escape from a bad place would be an economic one. if more and more come in and there are not as many jobs being created then something will have to give at some point.

I suppose that since the USA is a semi-socialist country that there are possible concerns that more free stuff will be given away. since there is not really such a thing as "free stuff" it means a bigger bill for someone.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope.

Why not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I get it.

There are many other crises that are much, much worse: climate change, drug addiction, gun violence, and affordable health care.

And yes, more people overstay their visas than come over the Southern border. And yes, there used to be lots more illegal crossing at the border.

HOWEVER, isn't this the "whataboutism" that we liberals complain about? These 1,000 people a day is a lot. This is more of a problem now because more are women and children.

The horrible conditions in Central America make this situation likely to get worse rather than better.

CONCLUSION
No, the additional need for wall money isn't a "national emergency". He already has lots to spend, especially when one considers the transfer of confiscated drug money and drug interdiction monies.

But the situation in Central America and our Southern border can certainly be reasonably called a crisis.

Yes. It's not often that I outright agree with one side or the other...but I don't think one can hope to sustain their nation if they take on half a million +, poor, uneducated people every year.

It is the problem that they are poor and uneducated. The bizarre thing about this is that if you were talking to a liberal about how difficult the job market is for a US citizen, born and raised, with a college degree...they probably won't argue.

The moment that you tell them that the millions of people who have a 4th or 5th grade education and cannot speak the language will depend on public funds for the rest of their lives....suddenly all common sense goes out the window and they call you "xenophobic".

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Also, as much as they fret about "herd immunity" breaking down over a few hippies here and there not vaccinating their children, it never occurs to them to think about what letting thousands of unvaccinated people into the country will affect herd immunity.

 

[Allandavid]

the only crisis I see besides human beings trying to escape from a bad place would be an economic one. if more and more come in and there are not as many jobs being created then something will have to give at some point.

I suppose that since the USA is a semi-socialist country that there are possible concerns that more free stuff will be given away. since there is not really such a thing as "free stuff" it means a bigger bill for someone.

2 wrong statements in there...

1. Immigrants have net positive effect on the economy and jobs.

2. America is nothing like a socialist country.

 

[Allandavid]

Yes. It's not often that I outright agree with one side or the other...but I don't think one can hope to sustain their nation if they take on half a million +, poor, uneducated people every year.

It is the problem that they are poor and uneducated. The bizarre thing about this is that if you were talking to a liberal about how difficult the job market is for a US citizen, born and raised, with a college degree...they probably won't argue.

The moment that you tell them that the millions of people who have a 4th or 5th grade education and cannot speak the language will depend on public funds for the rest of their lives....suddenly all common sense goes out the window and they call you "xenophobic".

What evidence do you have that immigrants “depend upon public funds for the rest of their lives”...?

 

[mark46]

The federal government puts an annual limit on asylum seekers, which has been somewhere between 25K and 100K.

Once we reach the limit each year, how should we treat the 1000 who try to cross each day?

[I am presuming that we have the additional judges and attempt to have initial hearings as soon as possible]

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

If 400,000 Republicans were pouring over the border every year, you can bet the Democrats would call it a crisis.

Actully, I'm sure many are Republican . They are running from horrible situations. The Christian thing would be safe them from danger.

 

[mark46]

I agree.

Are Democrats willing to say out loud that we should accept 400,000 refugees into the US as asylum seekers, and millions more should the come? Have they proposed this in legislation before the House? Have they proposed any increase in the numbers of asylum seekers that the US should accept?

Actully, I'm sure many are Republican . They are running from horrible situations. The Christian thing would be safe them from danger.

 

[Speedwell]

The federal government puts an annual limit on asylum seekers, which has been somewhere between 25K and 100K.

Once we reach the limit each year, how should we treat the 1000 who try to cross each day?

[I am presuming that we have the additional judges and attempt to have initial hearings as soon as possible]

Stop hearing the asylum claims of those who enter illegally. The border-storming hordes* which the Right fears are storming the border because they know that under present law their asylum claims must be heard even if they enter the country illegally. They come across near ports of entry to be sure that they will arrested immediately. If they knew that crossing illegally would mean their asylum claim would also be illegal, fewer would do it. It's not really rocket science.

*Keep in mind that ordinary economic migrants don't "storm the border" they sneak in, because their plan is to find a job somewhere, not get arrested immediately.

 

[New Birth]

Yes illegal immigration is a national emergency
Climate change is not an emergency
free healthcare is not an emergency

 

[Ringo84]

The only humanitarian crisis is the separation of migrant children from their parents - in many cases, never to see their parents again. It's a crisis entirely of the making of this casually cruel and racist president.

Other than that, there is no "crisis" at the border.
Ringo

 

[mark46]

I don't think that most Democrats would accept your very reasonable position.
======
I believe that this is the policy of the Trump administration. However, under current law, those who cross into the country illegally must be heard with regard to asylum. It is the wall that Trump believes will help stop at least some of these people before they cross. [This process would work even better if Mexicans allow US law enforcement to detain those who approach the wall while they are still within Mexican borders. Alternatively, Mexican law enforcement can detain them.]

Currently, Trump's policy is that asylum seekers must come to a legal port of entry, and wait on the Mexican side, with the US having daily hearings, and limiting this coming in to those can be heard. I believe that the total numbers will be limited to the numbers within the Congressional guidelines.
=============

Stop hearing the asylum claims of those who enter illegally. The border-storming hordes* which the Right fears are storming the border because they know that under present law their asylum claims must be heard even if they enter the country illegally. They come across near ports of entry to be sure that they will arrested immediately. If they knew that crossing illegally would mean their asylum claim would also be illegal, fewer would do it. It's not really rocket science.

*Keep in mind that ordinary economic migrants don't "storm the border" they sneak in, because their plan is to find a job somewhere, not get arrested immediately.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think that most Democrats would accept your very reasonable position.

More to the point, the Right won't consider it, either. Which is why some of us conclude that they want "The Wall" for other reasons.

 

[New Birth]

The only humanitarian crisis is the separation of migrant children from their parents - in many cases, never to see their parents again. It's a crisis entirely of the making of this casually cruel and racist president.

Other than that, there is no "crisis" at the border.
Ringo

What about the children of Americans that break the Law and go to jail? is that a crisis? How many kids have you adopted or sponsored because they have been separated from their parents?

 

[mark46]

Please clarify.

My understanding is that anyone not entering at the legal ports of entry is considered a criminal. I believe that long lines have been set up for asylum seekers at the legal ports of entry for processing by immigration judges, hopefully with initial hearings within 3 days.

What, of your proposal, isn't accepted by the Right?

More to the point, the Right won't consider it, either. Which is why some of us conclude that they want "The Wall" for other reasons.