US Authorities Fire Tear Gas to disperse Migrants

JosephZ · Dec 6, 2018

rjs330 said:
You sound like an open borders person.

Nope, I'm not for open borders at all. I haven't heard of anyone else suggesting we have open borders either.

rjs330 said:
So exactly how many people should we take in?

As many that ask for asylum, especially those who are coming from countries that are known for their violence and persecution against certain groups. Once they go through the asylum process and it's determined that their claim is legit, then those who qualify should be allowed to stay indefinitely. The US is fortunate that it is isolated from the war torn countries of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa where several million are seeking refuge. The US takes in far fewer refugees than countries in Europe, Africa, and Middle East, so those who are against allowing them to enter the US should feel pretty happy about that.

rjs330 said:
How many of the world's poor needy and desperate should we let in. Everyone that gets to our border? At what point do we as a sovereign nation have legitimate right to say stop?

We are talking about asylum seekers and refugees. A person living in poverty doesn't meet the requirements to enter to the US if that's their sole reason for coming here.

Right now though we do need to let more people into our country from developing countries because there aren't enough Americans willing to work in the agricultural sector or willing to train or go to school for jobs like truck driving and nursing.

rjs330 · Dec 7, 2018

JosephZ said:
Nope, I'm not for open borders at all. I haven't heard of anyone else suggesting we have open borders either.

As many that ask for asylum, especially those who are coming from countries that are known for their violence and persecution against certain groups. Once they go through the asylum process and it's determined that their claim is legit, then those who qualify should be allowed to stay indefinitely. The US is fortunate that it is isolated from the war torn countries of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa where several million are seeking refuge. The US takes in far fewer refugees than countries in Europe, Africa, and Middle East, so those who are against allowing them to enter the US should feel pretty happy about that.

We are talking about asylum seekers and refugees. A person living in poverty doesn't meet the requirements to enter to the US if that's their sole reason for coming here.

Right now though we do need to let more people into our country from developing countries because there aren't enough Americans willing to work in the agricultural sector or willing to train or go to school for jobs like truck driving and nursing.

A HUGE number of people who live in poverty also live in terrible regions that are very dangerous. Millions and millions of people. Should we let them all in if they claim asylum? How many should we take in? Is there a limit in your mind? A few thousand, afew million?

By the way many of those European countries are have quite a few problems with those refugees they let in.

Again we have NO issues with letting immigrants into our country as long as they are here legally. You and I are totally on the same page here. A person found to meet the asylum requirements should be let in. To a point. At some point we have to have the ability to say, no more right now.

And that can mean we can't process them all right now. There is only so.much we can do. I wrote a post a while back noting the relative impossibility of processing thousands of people all at once as asylum seekers.

There has to be some realistic thinking going on here and not just emotions.

Radagast · Dec 7, 2018

JosephZ said:
Once they go through the asylum process and it's determined that their claim is legit, then those who qualify should be allowed to stay indefinitely.

They are, afaik. The big national debate is about those whose with no legally valid claim.

Gigimo · Dec 7, 2018

HannahT said:
You have to wonder WHOM is telling them it does. These people aren't going to walk thousands of miles KNOWING they can't get asylum on economic conditions. Someone is lying to them, and giving them false hope. That's cruel. It really is.

I've brought that up on other threads and the deniers flock to proclaim the caravans are spontaneous when it's obvious they aren't.

JosephZ · Dec 7, 2018

Gigimo said:
I've brought that up on other threads and the deniers flock to proclaim the caravans are spontaneous when it's obvious they aren't.

They are organized, but many of those who joined did so spontaneously once they learn about them. The organizers have made it no secret as to why they have decided to start doing this. It's to bring international attention to the situation in Central America and the plight of the people who are fleeing, and because it is much safer to travel in a large group than individually.

These caravans are working exactly as they were designed. Most of the people who may have fallen victim to human traffickers, rapists, murderers, and thieves had they attempted the journey alone have been able to make the journey safely. More importantly, it has brought attention to what is taking place south of the US border causing more people in America to become aware of the situation and willing to help these people once they arrive.

All of the recent media attention has brought increasing support for asylum seekers in the US and more Americans than ever are volunteering to assist them. Once it was made known that most asylum seekers were being denied because of a lack of legal representation during the hearing process, there have been more attorneys and advocates willing to walk with them through the process and appear with them in court so they don't have to do it alone. There are also more NGOs and churches devoting more attention to asylum seekers and refugees than in the past as well.

Before the number of asylum seekers who were allowed to remain in the country was relatively low, but with better representation in the court system than in the past, more from these recent caravans and even those who show up individually will be approved to take refuge in our country all because of the attention these recent caravans have brought to the plight of the asylum seekers.

JosephZ · Dec 7, 2018

rjs330 said:
A HUGE number of people who live in poverty also live in terrible regions that are very dangerous.

Yes, I happen to work in such a place.

rjs330 said:
Millions and millions of people.

That's a bit low. The actual number would be well over a billion with hundreds of millions of those being children.

rjs330 said:
Should we let them all in if they claim asylum?

No

rjs330 said:
How many should we take in? Is there a limit in your mind? A few thousand, a few million?

It's hard to put a specific number. Right now we are taking in far fewer refugees than we have in the past, so since we have been able to easily accommodate higher numbers than what we are seeing to day, we should at least return to past levels. As for asylum seekers specifically, the number should be no less than 100,000 per year in my opinion.

rjs330 said:
By the way many of those European countries are have quite a few problems with those refugees they let in.

That's what I've heard in certain circles.

rjs330 said:
Again we have NO issues with letting immigrants into our country as long as they are here legally.

There must be an issue since seeking asylum is a legal approach to enter the country and we are also seeing fewer immigrants entering the country both legally and illegally than in years past. If there are no issues with allowing people in legally, why are so many angry at this current caravan and suggesting they not be allowed in?

rjs330 said:
You and I are totally on the same page here. A person found to meet the asylum requirements should be let in. To a point. At some point we have to have the ability to say, no more right now.

Since we are taking in tens of thousands fewer people than we were just a few years ago, then there's no reason for us to turn away the ones who are at our borders today. When you consider the total number of people in the world who would qualify for asylum in the US and the actual number who are showing up at our borders, it's only a tiny fraction. We can easily accommodate hundreds of thousands of immigrants a year as history has shown, so there is no need to consider putting a stop to it now.

rjs330 said:
And that can mean we can't process them all right now. There is only so.much we can do. I wrote a post a while back noting the relative impossibility of processing thousands of people all at once as asylum seekers.

If our government would have made preparations in advance of this latest caravan arriving, they would have all been in the country by now and could continue the asylum process within the safe confines of our borders. Unfortunately our government decided to militarize the border instead and has created a humanitarian crisis. Had more case workers been assigned and more work stations set up, there would be no need for all of the frustration on the part of the caravan members and attempts to breach the border by some between check points.

We are getting up to 100 of these people into the country a day with the caseworkers currently available to process them which means it will take at least 3 months to get them all in. Our government and its failure to prepare in advance for the arrival of this caravan is directly responsible for the chaos we are seeing at the border today.

jmldn2 · Dec 7, 2018

rjs330 said:
You sound like an open borders person.

So exactly how many people should we take in? The world is full of people needing help from deplorable conditions. Should we let them all in? How many of the world's poor needy and desperate should we let in. Everyone that gets to our border? At what point do we as a sovereign nation have legitimate right to say stop?

Good post and good questions. I would be interested in answers to them myself. Seriously.

JosephZ · Dec 7, 2018

jmldn2 said:
Good post and good questions. I would be interested in answers to them myself. Seriously.

Those questions were answered. See post 341 & 346.

Radagast · Dec 8, 2018

JosephZ said:
If there are no issues with allowing people in legally, why are so many angry at this current caravan and suggesting they not be allowed in?

Many people feel, rightly or wrongly, that (1) the people in the caravan don't have legal grounds for asylum, and (2) that members of the caravan intend to cross the border illegally.

Personally, it seems obvious to me that the US needs a faster refugee assessment process.

JosephZ · Dec 8, 2018

Radagast said:
Many people feel, rightly or wrongly, that (1) the people in the caravan don't have legal grounds for asylum, and (2) that members of the caravan intend to cross the border illegally.

Personally, it seems obvious to me that the US needs a faster refugee assessment process.

I agree. If there were more caseworkers available at the ports of entry, there would be a reduction in the number of illegal order crossings.

Radagast · Dec 8, 2018

JosephZ said:
I agree. If there were more caseworkers available at the ports of entry, there would be a reduction in the number of illegal order crossings.

But people eventually have to front up before a judge. As I understand it, the limiting factor is actually the number of judges.

JosephZ · Dec 8, 2018

Radagast said:
But people eventually have to front up before a judge. As I understand it, the limiting factor is actually the number of judges.

It's a combination of caseworkers and a lack of judges. Currently we are able to only process around 100 people a day at the port of entry where this current caravan is being held up, and once they are in the US, it can take several months to even years before a final decision is reached on their status. The good news is if takes longer than five months for the government to reach a decision of the asylum seeker's case, they are eligible to work in the US.

Currently there are hundreds of thousands of pending cases yet to be heard, so more judges are definitely needed to catch things up and to speed up the process in the future.

Radagast · Dec 8, 2018

JosephZ said:
The good news is if takes longer than five months for the government to reach a decision of the asylum seeker's case, they are eligible to work in the US.

Assuming that they don't just join the existing pool of illegals.

It's fear of that that has led many people to call for "stopping them at the border."

The thing about immigration policy is that it both has to work and be seen to work.

JosephZ · Dec 8, 2018

Radagast said:
Assuming that they don't just join the existing pool of illegals.

Almost all asylum seekers show up for their hearings and follow deportation orders when they are given.

Radagast said:
It's fear of that that has led many people to call for "stopping them at the border."

Many people unfortunately have been led to believe the propaganda coming from immigration restrictionists rather than the facts. If more people would take the time to learn about asylum seekers, refugees, and immigration, there would be fewer people calling for those fleeing violence and persecution to be stopped at the border.

rjs330 · Dec 8, 2018

JosephZ said:
Yes, I happen to work in such a place.

That's a bit low. The actual number would be well over a billion with hundreds of millions of those being children.

No

It's hard to put a specific number. Right now we are taking in far fewer refugees than we have in the past, so since we have been able to easily accommodate higher numbers than what we are seeing to day, we should at least return to past levels. As for asylum seekers specifically, the number should be no less than 100,000 per year in my opinion.

That's what I've heard in certain circles.

There must be an issue since seeking asylum is a legal approach to enter the country and we are also seeing fewer immigrants entering the country both legally and illegally than in years past. If there are no issues with allowing people in legally, why are so many angry at this current caravan and suggesting they not be allowed in?

Since we are taking in tens of thousands fewer people than we were just a few years ago, then there's no reason for us to turn away the ones who are at our borders today. When you consider the total number of people in the world who would qualify for asylum in the US and the actual number who are showing up at our borders, it's only a tiny fraction. We can easily accommodate hundreds of thousands of immigrants a year as history has shown, so there is no need to consider putting a stop to it now.

If our government would have made preparations in advance of this latest caravan arriving, they would have all been in the country by now and could continue the asylum process within the safe confines of our borders. Unfortunately our government decided to militarize the border instead and has created a humanitarian crisis. Had more case workers been assigned and more work stations set up, there would be no need for all of the frustration on the part of the caravan members and attempts to breach the border by some between check points.

We are getting up to 100 of these people into the country a day with the caseworkers currently available to process them which means it will take at least 3 months to get them all in. Our government and its failure to prepare in advance for the arrival of this caravan is directly responsible for the chaos we are seeing at the border today.

Our government can't do that. We don't have enough people to process that many. Do you realize the amount of people and resources it would take? It's not a matter of bring them in asking a few questions and stamping their passports. It takes a VERY long time to do that. It takes judges and lawyers and criminologists and investigators and security, cooks, doctors, nurses, and that's just a fraction of the people needed not to mention the facilities necessary to house, clothe, cook, feed etc all those people and the workers for an extended period of time. And when you pull all the resources from one place you are now shorting the places where they come from. Your removing workers from their homes and families. Your putting a burden on the other places that need them. We are talking about a small town here and not a town that is self sufficient, bit a town that is wholly dependent.

You have no idea of the enormity and the practical impossibility of such an event.

rjs330 · Dec 8, 2018

JosephZ said:
Almost all asylum seekers show up for their hearings and follow deportation orders when they are given.

Many people unfortunately have been led to believe the propaganda coming from immigration restrictionists rather than the facts. If more people would take the time to learn about asylum seekers, refugees, and immigration, there would be fewer people calling for those fleeing violence and persecution to be stopped at the border.

That's because we are particular in who we let in. We don't let in thousands at a time.

Radagast · Dec 8, 2018

JosephZ said:
Almost all asylum seekers show up for their hearings and follow deportation orders when they are given.

On DoJ data, 66% show up. That's not "almost all."

The people who know they haven't got a case obviously don't turn up. Why would they?

JosephZ · Dec 8, 2018

rjs330 said:
You have no idea of the enormity and the practical impossibility of such an event.

I know how the asylum process works.

rjs330 said:
It takes judges and lawyers and criminologists and investigators and security, cooks, doctors, nurses, and that's just a fraction of the people needed not to mention the facilities necessary to house, clothe, cook, feed etc all those people and the workers for an extended period of time.

What are you planning to do? Put everyone who asks for asylum in a detention facility? Most asylum seekers are able to freely move about the country and they get assistance from family, individuals, churches, NGO's and many get jobs and support themselves while they go through the asylum process.

We could use more case workers at the border and judges though.

JosephZ · Dec 8, 2018

Radagast said:
On DoJ data, 66% show up. That's not "almost all."

The people who know they haven't got a case obviously don't turn up. Why would they?

Did you read the article? That percentage is for all immigrants.

Here is what the article you linked to says about asylum seekers.

So what do the court attendance rates of asylees look like?
While the data is scarce, they show higher rates, compared to when all migrants are tallied together.

One source of data comes from an Obama-era program that released asylees from detention and matched them with case managers who encouraged compliance with court-ordered obligations. As of April, the Family Case Management Program, or FCMP, had 630 enrolled families.

Before the Trump administration ended the program in June, participants had a 100 percent attendance record at court hearings. They also had a 99 percent rate of check-ins and appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General report.

"According to ICE, overall program compliance for all five regions is an average of 99 percent for ICE check-ins and appointments, as well as 100 percent attendance at court hearings," the report said. "Since the inception of FCMP, 23 out of 954 participants (2 percent) were reported as absconders."

In 2015, the immigration advocacy group American Immigration Council published a report that looked at studies from over the previous two decades that examined how well asylum seekers fulfilled their legal obligations. It found studies showed "very high rates of compliance with proceedings by asylum seekers who were placed into alternatives to detention."

The report cited a 2000 U.S. government-commissioned study that found an "83 percent rate of compliance with court proceedings among asylum seekers who were found to have a credible fear in the expedited removal process." It also showed an 84 percent compliance rate among asylees under minimal supervision, and 78 percent among those who were unsupervised.[/QUOTE]

Radagast · Dec 8, 2018

JosephZ said:
Did you read the article? That percentage is for all immigrants.

The percentage seems to be higher for asylum seekers with a good case. It's not very high for asylum seekers with a weak case. Indeed, of the 24,000 or so asylum-seeking families ordered deported from July 2014 to November 2016, 85% were ordered to be deported in absentia (i.e. they were not actually deported, as they had "gone underground," because they knew they had a weak case).

Getting back to that article, the summary says "Around 60-75 percent of non-detained migrants have attended their immigration court proceedings, according to Justice Department data from the last five available years. Some limited data suggests rates may be higher for asylum-seekers.

That said, it’s important to note that in absolute terms, a significant number of migrants have had in absentia deportation orders filed against them for failure to appear in court"

US Authorities Fire Tear Gas to disperse Migrants

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency