US Authorities Fire Tear Gas to disperse Migrants

[JosephZ]

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.

What is your evidence for this statement? The reports state the number attending all the hearings includes all asylum seekers. It doesn't differentiate between those who have a good case and those who don't. Also, most of those who attend their hearings end up being deported anyway because they lack proper representation, even then, they still show up for their deportation hearings knowing they are going to be sent home.

Another good thing this caravan did was bring attention to the fact that most asylum seekers who go to their hearings without representation loose their case, so now steps are being taken by various churches, NGOs, and advocates around the country to make sure more asylum seekers in the future do have representation during their court appearances. There's a high probability that most of the people with this caravan and the one that came earlier in the year will be granted asylum since more people have become aware of their plight.

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"

This is what would be called "cherry picking." When the article is read in its entirety and you go to the linked studies, it's quite clear that almost all asylum seekers attend all of their required hearings. Including the hearings to have them deported from the country.

It's only a myth being pushed by immigration restrictionists that most asylum seekers don't show up for their court hearings and disappear into the country.

 

[Radagast]

This is what would be called "cherry picking."

No, quoting an article's own summary is not "cherry picking."

"Cherry-picking" would be using out-of-context quotes from the body of the article.

 

[JosephZ]

No, quoting an article's own summary is not "cherry picking."

"Cherry-picking" would be using out-of-context quotes from the body of the article.

What you quoted isn't a summery of the entire article. The percentages given are for ALL immigrants. It mentions asylum seekers, then latter in the article it goes into more detail about that subject which concludes that almost all asylum seekers show up for their hearings. It even gives a link to a study which goes into even more detail to support these findings.

Here's another article on the subject of asylum seekers attending their hearings.

Looking at 15 years of immigration court data, researchers from the American Immigration Council found that 96 percent of families requesting asylum who passed through detention facilities showed up for their immigration court hearings. Close to 6,000 families were released from detention to pursue asylum claims between 2001 and 2016, according to the report.

People seeking asylum may have more incentive to appear in court than groups who don’t have legal options for asking to stay.

Several hundred other migrant families who did not apply for asylum were released from detention between 2001 and 2016. When the report included them, the rate of migrant families showing up for court hearings decreased to 86 percent.

That trend continued for individuals released from adult detention facilities who had asylum cases pending over the same time period. According to the study, 95 percent of those asylum seekers also showed up for all of their hearings, and 81 percent of all those released from adult detention came to court.

Almost all asylum-seeking families show up for court, report finds

Link to the study mentioned in the articles:

https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...ernatives_to_detention_for_asylum_seekers.pdf

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017-12/OIG-18-22-Nov17.pdf

 

[Radagast]

What you quoted isn't a summery of the entire article.

Of course it was. That's why it had the heading "Our ruling"

 

[Radagast]

Looking at 15 years of immigration court data, researchers from the American Immigration Council found that 96 percent of families requesting asylum who passed through detention facilities showed up for their immigration court hearings. Close to 6,000 families were released from detention to pursue asylum claims between 2001 and 2016, according to the report.

That's a small group of 400 families per year that were released from detention because they had good cases. Yes, they showed up, but they were a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of asylum seekers each year.

 

[JosephZ]

Of course it was. That's why it had the heading "Our ruling"

Here is the summery of the article in full context:

Our ruling
"Blitzer said "most (immigrants) do show up in court."

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, which Blitzer’s statement overlooks.

We rate this Mostly True."

The article is talking about all immigrants in which it is ruled that most immigrants show up in court. With asylum seekers, the number that show up is higher and equates to almost all showing up according to the studies conducted.

That's a small group of 400 families per year that were released from detention because they had good cases. Yes, they showed up, but they were a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of asylum seekers each year.

I'm not sure where you got the number 400 from. One report included 6,000 families, and another included over 900 individuals. In both study groups almost all asylum seekers showed up for their hearings. These of course do not count all asylum seekers, but they are sample sizes which are representative of asylum seekers as a whole. The evidence shows that most immigrants show up for their hearings and when it comes to asylum seekers, almost all do.

Unfortunately President Trump recently scrapped the program that started under Obama's administration which had near 100% compliance, had faster processing, and was less expensive than what we are seeing now. There was no logical reason for him to end that program.

 

[Radagast]

Here is the summery of the article in full context:

Our ruling
"Blitzer said "most (immigrants) do show up in court."

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, which Blitzer’s statement overlooks.

We rate this Mostly True."

Exactly what I quoted.

With asylum seekers, the number that show up is higher and equates to almost all showing up according to the studies conducted.

Actually, that's not true. Asylum seekers who know they haven't got a case (and most take legal advice on this) mostly do not show up. After all, why would they?

For example, 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 had "gone underground," because they knew they had a weak case).

I'm not sure where you got the number 400 from. One report included 6,000 families

6,000 families over a 15-year period is 400 families per year. Just a tiny subset of asylum seekers.

It's important to be straight with the facts on an issue like this, if you want to form any kind of consensus for change.

 

[JosephZ]

Exactly what I quoted.

Yes, but I added more content to what you quoted to show that neither the summery, nor the article was about asylum seekers. It was about all immigrants combined.

Actually, that's not true. Asylum seekers who know they haven't got a case (and most take legal advice on this) mostly do not show up. After all, why would they?

Asylum seekers are coming to the US for the purpose of having their voices heard in court. Why would they apply for asylum and voluntarily put themselves into the court system if they plan on not showing up? They actually have a case unlike those illegally crossing the border. Asylum seekers already know its a long shot, but they still go through the legal process and attend all their hearings in hopes they will be approved in the end. If they don't show up at a hearing, they know they will have no chance at all at that point or anytime in the future to be approved. Why would they risk their opportunity by not going to court?

Asylum seekers have an incentive to show up for court hearings.

For example, 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 had "gone underground," because they knew they had a weak case).

That's not what that means.

Here is some information less than two weeks old which takes into account all court hearings in Fiscal Year 2018.

Absentia and Representation Rates
Rising denial rates were not the result of asylum seekers failing to show up for their hearing. During FY 2018, only 573 or 1.4 percent were denied asylum because they failed to appear for their scheduled hearing. That meant for 98.6 percent of all grant or deny decisions, the immigrants were present in court.
Asylum Decisions and Denials Jump in 2018

It's important to be straight with the facts on an issue like this, if you want to form any kind of consensus for change.

Yes it is. Unfortunately we have some politicians and groups out there who intentionally put out false information or distort the facts to push their restrictionist agendas regarding immigration.

Fortunately the attitude towards refugees and asylum seekers is improving in the US because of the attention these caravans have brought and the immigration restrictionist's negative reaction to them. The unwarranted attacks against people seeking asylum in our country has resulted in organizations and individuals in the country to take action and the positive changes are already starting to be seen.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, but I added more content to what you quoted to show that neither the summery

Yes it was. That's why it was headed "our ruling."

Asylum seekers are coming to the US for the purpose of having their voices heard in court. Why would they apply for asylum and voluntarily put themselves into the court system if they plan on not showing up?

Because many of them (about half) know that they don't have a legal case (and if they didn't know it on arrival, they know it after getting legal advice).

They actually have a case unlike those illegally crossing the border.

In fact, most of them are asylum seekers too, in that they claim asylum when they are caught.

If they don't show up at a hearing, they know they will have no chance at all at that point or anytime in the future to be approved. Why would they risk their opportunity by not going to court?

Why do millions of people live in the US illegally?

Here is some information less than two weeks old which takes into account all court hearings in Fiscal Year 2018.

Other data I've seen suggests much higher in absentia rates (over 40,000 per year).

Fortunately the attitude towards refugees and asylum seekers is improving in the US because of the attention these caravans have brought and the immigration restrictionist's negative reaction to them. The unwarranted attacks against people seeking asylum in our country has resulted in organizations and individuals in the country to take action and the positive changes are already starting to be seen.

It cuts both ways. The European experience has shown us that as intake levels increase, opposition to immigration also increases.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What’s shameful are men putting mothers and children in front of their rock throwing. What does that accomplish?

Accoring to this site, if that can be proven to be true, being intentional, then they are in gross violation of armed conflict rules, even with the use of just stone throwing.
But when people are in desperate straits, it can lead to that.....

The Paradox of Using Human Shields in War - Ethics & International Affairs

Human shields drive state armies to distraction. Bound by international law and their own military ethos, state armies find themselves hamstrung when confronting guerrilla armies willing to draw their own civilians into battle.
From the viewpoint of state armies, human shields represent a gross violation of the laws of armed conflict.
From the perspective of guerrilla organizations, human shields offer a rational strategy to offset their organization’s military weakness.

Clips aired by Israel during the 2008-2009 war in Gaza show how Hamas placed civilians on rooftops to protect buildings suspected of housing arms, and used children to protect militants from attack. In each case, Israel held back.

Shielding works when state armies respect the immunity of noncombatants. We must remember, however, that noncombatant immunity does not protect civilians from all harm.
During war, civilians suffer from collateral harm when an army attacks a legitimate military target and cannot avoid civilian casualties.......................

It's a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion to gain sympathy. Deployment of tear gas, of course, is a standard method of riot control used by law enforcement all across the country.

What kind of parents bring their children to the scene of a riot? Parents worthy of the name protect their children and keep them away from danger, they don't use them as shields.

The Border Patrol has confirmed that it happened.

Interesting........


,




.

 

[JosephZ]

In fact, most of them are asylum seekers too, in that they claim asylum when they are caught.

This is not a fact.

Most illegals don't claim asylum when they are caught.

From the year 2000 through 2017 there has been an average of 50,000+ people crossing the border illegally each month. During that same time period, there has been an average of 4351.59 people requesting asylum in the US each month. Than number is less than 10% of the number of illegals coming into the country each month on average. Since most people seeking asylum intentionally report to points of entry, then very few crossing the border illegally would be claiming asylum after they are caught if the total number of asylum seekers is so small in comparison.

Why do millions of people live in the US illegally?

Most illegals initially came into the country legally and had their visas expire. Some are victims of human trafficking and have no documentation. Others were ordered to leave and decided to ignore it. There are lots of reasons why people remain in the country illegally.

It does sound like no-show rates are down. This presumably reflects more people being in detention

The studies show that the numbers between those detained and those who are released into the country vary by only a few percentage points. With more people helping asylum seekers than ever before, the numbers showing up for all of their court hearings should continue increase for those who are not detained.

The European experience has shown us that as intake levels increase, opposition to immigration also increases.

Actually it's been the opposite. Just like in the US, there are certain politicians and immigration restrictionists that put out a lot of misleading information. Leading up to the height of the immigration crisis in Europe the immigration restrictionists were in full swing exploiting the suffering of others to push their agenda. After all of the failed predictions and fear mongering it didn't take people very long to realize that immigrants as a whole are not bad people to be feared and their attitudes became more favorable towards them once again.

The more people interact with people from other cultures and those who are different than they are, the less fearful they become of them and they become more likely to accept them in their communities.

 

[Radagast]

Since most people seeking asylum intentionally report to points of entry

This is not actually true. About half do, and the other half claim asylum when caught. See Figure 5 here: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Refugees_Asylees_2016.pdf

The more people interact with people from other cultures and those who are different than they are, the less fearful they become of them and they become more likely to accept them in their communities.

This has been the Australian experience (with legal immigrants, anyway), but even here in Australia there's a growing feeling that immigration levels are too high -- not due to cultural factors, but due to infrastructure limits.

 

[JosephZ]

This is not actually true. About half do, and the other half claim asylum when caught.

The defensive asylum seekers in that chart doesn't necessarily represent people who were caught in the country illegally and then suddenly decided to claim they were seeking asylum to avoid the consequences. Those numbers would mostly include people who originally filled for asylum and were rejected which is quite common. It would also include people who are in the country legally, but have been ordered to leave the country for whatever reason, those whose visas are about to expire, but believe their country is too dangerous for them to return to, and it would also include people who may have applied for asylum, and while waiting for a decision to be made, is charged with a crime such as drunk driving or failure to appear in court.

There would no doubt be some counted in those numbers represented on that graph who enter illegally and try to take that route after being caught, but it wouldn't be anywhere close to the majority.

This has been the Australian experience (with legal immigrants, anyway), but even here in Australia there's a growing feeling that immigration levels are too high -- not due to cultural factors, but due to infrastructure limits.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Radagast]

The defensive asylum seekers in that chart doesn't necessarily mean people who were caught in the country illegally and then suddenly decided to claim they were seeking asylum to avoid the consequences.

"A defensive asylum seeker, on the other hand, is someone who claims asylum after being caught in the country or crossing the border without the proper paperwork."

 

[JosephZ]

"A defensive asylum seeker, on the other hand, is someone who claims asylum after being caught in the country or crossing the border without the proper paperwork."

That is a poorly written article. It also says this a couple of paragraphs earlier.

An asylum officer reviews the application - which includes a background check and in-person interview - and determines whether to approve it. A supervisory asylum officer reviews the asylum officer's decision to ensure it is consistent with the law.

If the application is denied, the asylum-seeker may renew the request through the defensive process and appear before an immigration judge.

Most asylum seekers using the defensive approach were denied when they originally applied for asylum. The article makes it sound like only those who enter the country illegally are using the defensive process, yet it contradicts its self by saying that those whose applications are denied can use the defensive process. The examples I gave in my previous posts are all examples of people who can use the defensive process and they would far outnumber the ones coming across the border illegally and using it as an excuse. The graph that you linked to earlier would include all of the above.