Trump Attempts to Kill Border Security Legislation - Again

[BPPLEE]

I would like to understand what "shutdown" means in an operational sense.



Legally, its assumed a path for asylum applicants must remain open. Do you believe otherwise?

I thought the goal of passing legislation was to change asylum laws. Now you’re claiming we have to follow asylum laws. So what changed?

 

[BCP1928]

It’s just not true that the border shuts down. And if this bill becomes law they will just stop turning themselves in and come in undetected

That's why there are provisions in the bill to make it harder to come in undetected.

 

[BPPLEE]

So it's not just asylum for illegal entrants you oppose, you don't want to grant any asylum at all???

I’m just pointing out that the border isn’t ever shutdown as is claimed

 

[BCP1928]

I’m just pointing out that the border isn’t ever shutdown as is claimed

It depends on what you mean by "shut down." In the context of the present conversation I assumed that it meant shut down to any but legal entrants.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it’s the amount of people that are allowed in daily

Less than Trump allowed. More hypocrisy. And remember the republicans negotiated that number. I get their distress. They agreed with the democrats to reduce the flow of immigrants at the border. Then Trump, realizing that he'd lose his last campaign issue, ordered them to renege on their agreement. We all understand that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Trump suggested that.
When he was told it would be illegal, then he suggested just shooting them in the legs.

Trump's Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, observed that Trump has the mind of a fifth or sixth grader. This is an example of that kind of thinking.

 

[BPPLEE]

Less than Trump allowed. More hypocrisy. And remember the republicans negotiated that number. I get their distress. They agreed with the democrats to reduce the flow of immigrants at the border. Then Trump, realizing that he'd lose his last campaign issue, ordered them to renege on their agreement. We all understand that.

Some Republicans agreed. Not all of them So they’re not necessarily reneging

 

[BPPLEE]

That's why there are provisions in the bill to make it harder to come in undetected.

Really?
Congressional Funding for Asylum Officers and Lawyers for Kids

Appropriations in the bill include funding to USCIS to hire up to 4,300 new asylum officers to take on the additional workload of the bill’s new asylum processes. While the new system would go into effect upon enactment—at least, unless superseded by the emergency authority—hiring of those asylum officers would likely take years, running the risk that short-staffing will continue to slow down processing of asylum seekers and other immigrants and would-be immigrants. Furthermore, the bill prevents USCIS from funding its asylum operations through the application fees that it uses to fund most of its work—taking the burden off immigrants to fund humanitarian processing, but instead relying on future Congresses to pick up the slack.
Additionally, the bill includes funds for a program that would guarantee access to counsel for children who arrive in the U.S. without parents and are 13 or younger—a key innovation which could open the door in future to universal representation for all immigrants at risk of deportation.

 

[wing2000]

I thought the goal of passing legislation was to change asylum laws. Now you’re claiming we have to follow asylum laws. So what changed?

Can you answer the question? You seem to be arguing the government should not allow any persons to seek asylum even if it has the capacity to support 1,400 daily entries.

The border is never shut down. This is a myth.
“Furthermore, the bill requires the government to allow people to seek asylum at ports of entry even during a border emergency and requires the government to maintain capacity for 1,400 daily entries in this manner—ensuring that asylum will not be wholly unavailable“

Legally, its assumed a path for asylum applicants must remain open. Do you believe otherwise?

 

[BPPLEE]

Can you answer the question? You seem to be arguing the government should not allow any persons to seek asylum even if it has the capacity to support 1,400 daily entries.

That’s half a million people a year. No we don’t need to accept that many. We can’t fix the world’s problems
The bill also increases legal immigration

 

[Arcangl86]

That’s half a million people a year. No we don’t need to accept that many. We can’t fix the world’s problems
The bill also increases legal immigration

Who said anything about accepting that many. It's only processing them, the majority of which will get rejected.

 

[wing2000]

That’s half a million people a year. No we don’t need to accept that many. We can’t fix the world’s problems
The bill also increases legal immigration

Still not answering the question.

 

[BPPLEE]

Still not answering the question.

“No we don’t need to accept that many”

 

[BPPLEE]

Who said anything about accepting that many. It's only processing them, the majority of which will get rejected.

Are you a criminal? No
Are you in danger? Yes
Welcome to America

 

[wing2000]

Are you a criminal? No
Are you in danger? Yes
Welcome to America

Currently:

"Migrants can have up to three separate screenings to determine the validity of their asylum claims – and estimates suggest up to 4 out of 5 migrants pass their initial asylum screening, while less than 1 out of 5 actually receive a grant of asylum. With current migration levels, the process of receiving a final asylum determination can take up to ten years or more due to a backlogged and overwhelmed system.

The bill fixes this broken system by creating a process that effectively evaluates asylum claims – establishing the expectation that migrants who don’t qualify will be quickly identified and removed to their home countries.

Raise the asylum screening standard to assess whether a migrant has a credible fear of persecution or torture to ensure those with legitimate asylum claims receive protection, while those with invalid claims are removed quickly.

● Consolidate the multiple initial screenings into one Protection Determination Interview, which all migrants undergo in 90 days or fewer.
● End catch and release by requiring the detention or mandatory supervision of all migrants processed at the border, ensuring all migrants follow through with the asylum process.

To efficiently and effectively conduct these Protection Determination Interviews, the bill gives DHS the resources it needs to hire personnel, and we ensure asylum claims and appeals are adjudicated by USCIS rather than the immigration court system – both of which will reduce the asylum backlog.

The new removal authority allows for efficient processing and removal of economic migrants and others who do not meet the threshold for asylum in a matter of several weeks to no more than 6 months. Under the current system, this process takes up to 10 years or more."

https://www.sinema.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bipartisan-Border-Security-Package-Myths-vs-Facts.pdf

 

[Arcangl86]

Are you a criminal? No
Are you in danger? Yes
Welcome to America

Yeah, that's not at all how asylum screenings work. I suggest you actual familiarize yourself with the process before commenting about it.

 

[BPPLEE]

Currently:

"Migrants can have up to three separate screenings to determine the validity of their asylum claims – and estimates suggest up to 4 out of 5 migrants pass their initial asylum screening, while less than 1 out of 5 actually receive a grant of asylum. With current migration levels, the process of receiving a final asylum determination can take up to ten years or more due to a backlogged and overwhelmed system.

The bill fixes this broken system by creating a process that effectively evaluates asylum claims – establishing the expectation that migrants who don’t qualify will be quickly identified and removed to their home countries.

Raise the asylum screening standard to assess whether a migrant has a credible fear of persecution or torture to ensure those with legitimate asylum claims receive protection, while those with invalid claims are removed quickly.

● Consolidate the multiple initial screenings into one Protection Determination Interview, which all migrants undergo in 90 days or fewer.
● End catch and release by requiring the detention or mandatory supervision of all migrants processed at the border, ensuring all migrants follow through with the asylum process.

To efficiently and effectively conduct these Protection Determination Interviews, the bill gives DHS the resources it needs to hire personnel, and we ensure asylum claims and appeals are adjudicated by USCIS rather than the immigration court system – both of which will reduce the asylum backlog.

The new removal authority allows for efficient processing and removal of economic migrants and others who do not meet the threshold for asylum in a matter of several weeks to no more than 6 months. Under the current system, this process takes up to 10 years or more."

https://www.sinema.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bipartisan-Border-Security-Package-Myths-vs-Facts.pdf

Well that’s a start

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thought the goal of passing legislation was to change asylum laws. Now you’re claiming we have to follow asylum laws. So what changed?

It doesn't change who qualifies for asylum, but it does change how the initial processing proceeds including permissible was to apply.

 

[stevil]

Trump's Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, observed that Trump has the mind of a fifth or sixth grader. This is an example of that kind of thinking.

Yes, absolutely. My children speak with better grammar and can construct sentences and paragraphs much more coherently than D Trump. They know it is inhumane to shoot people who are asking for help, they know not to mock disabled people, nor call people by nicknames. They know not to refer to a person as MY African American or My Maori.
My kids know they need to pay attention at school because Daddy isn't going to buy their way through it.
They know that laws apply to them.
My kids act with grace and dignity

 

[stevil]

We have more than that now. What makes you think it will change?

It won't change, because the Republicans voted against the bill.