Yuma AZ Mayor Declares Emergency

[Ana the Ist]

A fair enough idea... but I'm a little puzzled about the nature of the "evidence" that would be lacking.

Suppose for example someone is a political dissident or on some dictator's kill list, etc.... it seems unlikely that they'll have a copy of their own death warrant to show to an ICE officer as "evidence."

Well those situations generally the sort of thing our intelligence community knows about. If there's political or personal persecution going on, we probably already know about it.

If they're on the run from a drug cartel, forget it! Those guys aren't even in the habit of leaving paper trails at all... so the asylum seeker is out of luck, aren't they?

Well, that's part of the problem I think...it's not consistent across the board. Claims of gang violence will get someone a hearing...but it sounds like very few will qualify for asylum.

So determining if that qualifies or not would be a good start...and then after that, we should require something more than a claim if it does qualify. Did they file a police report? Did the police make an attempt to investigate it? That sort of thing.

 

[LoAmmi]

Oh, I don't know....

I think we could streamline the asylum process....reject outright any claims that lack evidence. Think of a pre-trial dismissal.

If that were done and they were sent back immediately, I think it could have a significant impact.

Wouldn't that require funding that has to come from Congress? There's no way the Democrats would support anything related to this stuff until after the 2020 election.

Well there's a fairly simple reason why this isn't happening in Mexico. Last time I checked, being in the nation illegally carried a significant prison sentence (1-2 years?).

We already have too many prisoners and you want to create more?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well those situations generally the sort of thing our intelligence community knows about. If there's political or personal persecution going on, we probably already know about it.

True enough, but our intelligence community doesn't know who specifically is being targeted...

Say some dictator is tracking down key figures of the opposition party... (I'm going to use Republicans and Democrats strictly for the sake of example, here) The dictator is a "Republican," going after key "Democrats" -- this much would be well known to our Intel network... but even if our asylum seeker can somehow prove that he is a registered "Democrat," he can't prove (and our Intel network has no way of knowing) that he's on the dictator's radar.

Do we take him at his word and have one more immigrant if we're wrong, or send him back to get killed if we're wrong?

Well, that's part of the problem I think...it's not consistent across the board. Claims of gang violence will get someone a hearing...but it sounds like very few will qualify for asylum.

Everyone gets a hearing... we haven't yet done away with due process, I would hope.

Claims of gang violence would, as you said, be well-known to our intel... but not whether or not a specific individual is on some cartel's hit list.

So determining if that qualifies or not would be a good start...and then after that, we should require something more than a claim if it does qualify. Did they file a police report? Did the police make an attempt to investigate it? That sort of thing.

A police report from a country where the dictator and/or cartels all but own the police? In that case, they would have a copy of their own death warrant.

Seems to me if these people believed the police were going to be any help, they wouldn't be hiking halfway across a continent to escape... don't you think?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wouldn't that require funding that has to come from Congress? There's no way the Democrats would support anything related to this stuff until after the 2020 election.

To pass legislation? I'm just talking about clarifying across the board what qualifies for asylum and "evidence" in such cases.

We already have too many prisoners and you want to create more?

If it eliminates the problem....yes.

If they knew they would be facing a mandatory 1 year in prison before being sent back...my guess is a lot fewer would make the attempt.

You're complaining about having "more prisoners" in a situation where they're already draining resources. Did you read the article?

 

[LoAmmi]

To pass legislation? I'm just talking about clarifying across the board what qualifies for asylum and "evidence" in such cases.

I assume we need more judges too. But maybe. I'm ok with that. Processing people is better than caging them.

If it eliminates the problem....yes.

If they knew they would be facing a mandatory 1 year in prison before being sent back...my guess is a lot fewer would make the attempt.

You're complaining about having "more prisoners" in a situation where they're already draining resources. Did you read the article?

I believe most studies have shown that it actually isn't a deterrent to throw a larger penalty at a crime.

 

[Ana the Ist]

True enough, but our intelligence community doesn't know who specifically is being targeted...

Say some dictator is tracking down key figures of the opposition party... (I'm going to use Republicans and Democrats strictly for the sake of example, here) The dictator is a "Republican," going after key "Democrats" -- this much would be well known to our Intel network... but even if our asylum seeker can somehow prove that he is a registered "Democrat," he can't prove (and our Intel network has no way of knowing) that he's on the dictator's radar.

If we know that a dictator is targeting someone (let's say Russian journalists) and the person who is asking for asylum is one of those people (let's say a Russian journalist) then they've qualified for an asylum hearing.

Everyone gets a hearing... we haven't yet done away with due process, I would hope.

Actually no....not everyone gets a hearing. Some people show up asking for asylum and when they explain why, the respond that they cannot find a job in their home country. They are rejected outright...they don't qualify.

Claims of gang violence would, as you said, be well-known to our intel... but not whether or not a specific individual is on some cartel's hit list.

Right.

A police report from a country where the dictator and/or cartels all but own the police? In that case, they would have a copy of their own death warrant.

Do they own the police or not? If they never even tried....how do they know the police won't help?

Seems to me if these people believed the police were going to be any help, they wouldn't be hiking halfway across a continent to escape... don't you think?

Seems to me if we require no evidence at all...then anyone can claim to be fleeing violence and get into the US easily, don't you think?

Asylum serves a genuine purpose...but if it's subjected to widespread fraud without any consequences, it no longer serves that purpose.

 

[PeachyKeane]

So the border city of Yuma has declared an emergency...

The Mayor of Yuma declares state emergency

This is, of course, the problem that has had many proposed solutions. Stricter enforcement of existing laws (aka child separation) the wall (aka enhanced border security) and most recently, sending them to "sanctuary cities". If you're unfamiliar with the issue, the simple explanation is that apprehensions are increasing, detention centers are overflowing, and now city resources like homeless shelters and charities are overwhelmed. There are simply more people than our system can handle.

What are the solutions to this on the left? Because it seems to be largely ignored or brushed off if it's addressed at all. I can remember headlines just a couple of months ago making fun of Trump's national crisis declaration...saying it's not really a crisis. Now we have mayors on the front lines of the problem say that it is indeed a crisis.

I know that the left has suggested that preventing illegals from working is the key....but that kind of legislation will take considerable time to pass, take effect, and then finally have any effect on this crisis. The same thing can be said about any pipedreams of "fixing" the nations these people are leaving. Even if such a thing were possible, it would take decades, and is of no help now.

I'd like to see Democrats finally come to their senses and do something about this...even if it means working together with Republicans or, heaven forbid, Trump. Ultimately, people's lives and safety are at stake now and doing nothing isn't an option.

Any thoughts?

We could try appointing judges so that cases can be decided faster?

Also, Trump could stop threatening to close the border, or to stop accepting asylum cases.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I assume we need more judges too. But maybe. I'm ok with that. Processing people is better than caging them.

I was always a bit confused by the caging claims. What exactly is that about? A roof?

I believe most studies have shown that it actually isn't a deterrent to throw a larger penalty at a crime.

I suspect it's dependent upon the crime. If you've ever been to Singapore....it's one of the cleanest cities in the world. If you wonder why, take a peek at their penalty for littering.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We could try appointing judges so that cases can be decided faster?

Again, I don't think this would've been a bad idea a few years ago....

Last time I checked, I think it was maybe 400-600 judges hearing 800,000+ cases. Realistically, we could have 10 times the judges and this would still be an enormous problem.

Also, Trump could stop threatening to close the border, or to stop accepting asylum cases.

I don't know if he can legally do either of those things. Yet sadly, I think if this continues....our leaders will eventually disregard international law and freeze asylum for awhile. That would be a shame for those genuinely fleeing war and persecution by their governments.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Again, I don't think this would've been a bad idea a few years ago....

Last time I checked, I think it was maybe 400-600 judges hearing 800,000+ cases. Realistically, we could have 10 times the judges and this would still be an enormous problem.

It couldn't hurt.

I don't know if he can legally do either of those things. Yet sadly, I think if this continues....our leaders will eventually disregard international law and freeze asylum for awhile. That would be a shame for those genuinely fleeing war and persecution by their governments.

It doesn't make a difference if he can do it. People hear that soon America will have a wall, won't process asylum requests, or is closing the border...well they better pick up and go there now if they're ever going to do it. Tomorrow could be too late.

He's taken a problem and made it worse.

And I forgot. Maybe don't cut money earmarked to Mexican countries meant as relief or to make residents more self-sufficient. That isn't helping.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If we know that a dictator is targeting someone (let's say Russian journalists) and the person who is asking for asylum is one of those people (let's say a Russian journalist) then they've qualified for an asylum hearing.

Ok then... as long as we know that the asylum seeker is a member of a group being persecuted.

Actually no....not everyone gets a hearing. Some people show up asking for asylum and when they explain why, the respond that they cannot find a job in their home country. They are rejected outright...they don't qualify.

Well, that is part of the hearing process... some folks get knocked out in the first round.

Thanks for the clarification.

Do they own the police or not? If they never even tried....how do they know the police won't help?

If you knew (or reasonably believed) that the Corleone family had their hooks into the local police department, would you go to the cops if Don Corleone put a contract out on you?

Seems to me if we require no evidence at all...then anyone can claim to be fleeing violence and get into the US easily, don't you think?

Of course... but let's use a modicum of common sense when it comes to the level of evidence... a person fleeing for his life is probably not going to pack too many legal documents before making a break for it... don't you think?

Asylum serves a genuine purpose...but if it's subjected to widespread fraud without any consequences, it no longer serves that purpose.

Agreed... which is why we need standards. But because the purpose of asylum is humanitarian, I'd prefer to err on the side of mercy when it can't be avoided.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok then... as long as we know that the asylum seeker is a member of a group being persecuted.

Which is really what asylum is for to begin with.

Well, that is part of the hearing process... some folks get knocked out in the first round.

From what I've read, that part of the process was loosened considerably. Now one simply need claim a reason to be afraid of going back.

If you knew (or reasonably believed) that the Corleone family had their hooks into the local police department, would you go to the cops if Don Corleone put a contract out on you?

I would try to find an honest cop. I'm simply not pessimistic enough to assume they're all corrupted.

Of course... but let's use a modicum of common sense when it comes to the level of evidence... a person fleeing for his life is probably not going to pack too many legal documents before making a break for it... don't you think?

It's my understanding that most of them make copies of legitimate birth certificates as well as creating or buy fake ones. Often, the child they're presenting as their own isn't theirs at all.

If they have time to arrange for a fake child...they can find some evidence of a threat to their lives.

Agreed... which is why we need standards. But because the purpose of asylum is humanitarian, I'd prefer to err on the side of mercy when it can't be avoided.

I can understand that...my issue is really with the sliding definition of what qualifies. A judge in NY may approve some claim that a judge in SC won't. That's a rather clear sign that it's lacking in any real objective standards.

Personally, I feel like it should apply to those fleeing war...or persecution specifically from the government. There's really nowhere on earth where people cannot be victimized by criminal gangs...that happens here in the US. I worry that this will be the go-to strategy for every central or south American nation that fails...and I believe that many are close to failing, if not there already.

Can we absord 8-10 million people over a decade or two? Probably....with forward thinking and good leadership. If it gets to the point where it's looking more like 20-40 million people over a similar time...things are going to get really really ugly.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It couldn't hurt.

Sure...but I don't really know if that's even feasible. I don't know how many judges can be acquired that quickly. It sounds nice....but it's basically a line on a wish list atm.

It doesn't make a difference if he can do it. People hear that soon America will have a wall, won't process asylum requests, or is closing the border...well they better pick up and go there now if they're ever going to do it. Tomorrow could be too late.

This problem first appeared way back in 2014. That was the start of the trend of families and children showing up and turning themselves in to the first person they saw.

There's been no effect caused by Trump that I've seen....except when it paused after he won the election.

He's taken a problem and made it worse.

How so?

And I forgot. Maybe don't cut money earmarked to Mexican countries meant as relief or to make residents more self-sufficient. That isn't helping.

I can't tell if that money was helping to begin with. It's been a rather steady and predictable increase since 2014. Saying that the flow increased after money was cut doesn't really prove anything.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Sure...but I don't really know if that's even feasible. I don't know how many judges can be acquired that quickly. It sounds nice....but it's basically a line on a wish list atm.

Well we'd best get started then.

If you're looking for speed, the fastest way to solve this problem is to just very loudly execute asylum seekers.

This problem first appeared way back in 2014. That was the start of the trend of families and children showing up and turning themselves in to the first person they saw.

There's been no effect caused by Trump that I've seen....except when it paused after he won the election.

Isn't everyone in a tizzy about this emergency at the border? A sudden rise in asylum seekers? Wait. Where am I? What's this thread about?

How so?

When you're in a bar late at night, and a bartender or someone says "last call" that's when everyone says "I better get my drink now before the bar closes", and goes for a drink.

Trump is saying last call.

I can't tell if that money was helping to begin with. It's been a rather steady and predictable increase since 2014. Saying that the flow increased after money was cut doesn't really prove anything.

Well cutting it should surely help.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I would try to find an honest cop. I'm simply not pessimistic enough to assume they're all corrupted.

Guess wrong and you sleep with the fishes. What kind of odds are you willing to gamble when your life is at stake?

It's my understanding that most of them make copies of legitimate birth certificates as well as creating or buy fake ones. Often, the child they're presenting as their own isn't theirs at all.

If they have time to arrange for a fake child...they can find some evidence of a threat to their lives.

Your understanding of the way they all operate is noted.

I can understand that...my issue is really with the sliding definition of what qualifies. A judge in NY may approve some claim that a judge in SC won't. That's a rather clear sign that it's lacking in any real objective standards.

Judges are human beings, some more sympathetic than others. It's an imperfect system, but it beats the alternative.

Personally, I feel like it should apply to those fleeing war...or persecution specifically from the government. There's really nowhere on earth where people cannot be victimized by criminal gangs...that happens here in the US. I worry that this will be the go-to strategy for every central or south American nation that fails...and I believe that many are close to failing, if not there already.

True enough... but some of these cartels can face down the local governments on even terms... I wouldn't be surprised if one or two had the advantage.

Can we absord 8-10 million people over a decade or two? Probably....with forward thinking and good leadership.

Our government has all but two of those things.

If it gets to the point where it's looking more like 20-40 million people over a similar time...things are going to get really really ugly.

Seems to me that we need to make sure it doesn't get to that point... we get that many people running for the border, building a wall and cowering behind it isn't going to work.

The place to stop these sort of problems is at the source.

 

[Mark Quayle]

From the sounds of it, they're completely out of resources by the time they get here. Mexico surely buses them along their way....as it benefits Mexico to get these people out of their nation as quickly as possible, lest they strain Mexican resources.

As for how they afford to get smuggled north into the US, it seems like we'll probably see a lot of stories like this...

Illinois woman held 33 Guatemalans in basement, forced them into labor, threatened deportation, authorities say

She had 33 Guatemalans in her basement, basically as indentured servants, while they paid her their tens of thousands of dollars in debt.



A lot of people feel if the incentive to come here doesn't exist, the problem goes away.

There is something in Latin-American culture, kind of like the 55 mph speed limit up here, that law is not really the law unless it is enforced. While Obama and Dems invited them up here, contrary to the written law, they were enticed, though of course, they needed to sneak. (Like smuggling items across the border of one Latin-American country to another, they are SUPPOSED to sneak. It is assumed. After all, you can't just waltz across right in front of the guards. You would have to pay a lot more to do that.)

Now I'm wondering if they know the jig is up and they better get across while they can.

 

[wing2000]

There is something in Latin-American culture, kind of like the 55 mph speed limit up here, that law is not really the law unless it is enforced.

That isn't unique to Latin America. Imagine if state troopers just decided one day to start issuing tickets for anyone going 1 mph or over the speed limit?

While Obama and Dems invited them up here,

eh-um....when American employers enticed multiple generations of Latin Americans to come north....interesting how you seem to ignore the pull factor.....but if you insist on blaming the executive branch, start with the current occupant (who in fact employed illegal immigrants) and work your way back to at least Ronald Reagan.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That isn't unique to Latin America. Imagine if state troopers just decided one day to start issuing tickets for anyone going 1 mph or over the speed limit?



eh-um....when American employers enticed multiple generations of Latin Americans to come north....interesting how you seem to ignore the pull factor.....but if you insist on blaming the executive branch, start with the current occupant (who in fact employed illegal immigrants) and work your way back to at least Ronald Reagan.

The problem isn't that there is work available for them up here. If they knew they ran a huge risk at crossing the border illegally, the work up here would not appeal so much.

Like I said, if the law was enforced, it would be the law to them.

 

[wing2000]

The problem isn't that there is work available for them up here. If they knew they ran a huge risk at crossing the border illegally, the work up here would not appeal so much.

Like I said, if the law was enforced, it would be the law to them.

The attraction of a US job has been the problem over the last 3 decades. There is a direct relation between US labor demand and illegal immigration. It's gone on for so long that Mexico and Cen. AMerica are essentially part of our economy. Why has the US Government refused to go after employers?

Supply and demand is a basic principle of any economy. It's interesting how the demand part of the equation is ignored by the politicians in Washington....for both labor and American demand for illegal drugs.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The attraction of a US job has been the problem over the last 3 decades. There is a direct relation between US labor demand and illegal immigration. It's gone on for so long that Mexico and Cen. AMerica are essentially part of our economy. Why has the US Government refused to go after employers?

Supply and demand is a basic principle of any economy. It's interesting how the demand part of the equation is ignored by the politicians in Washington....for both labor and American demand for illegal drugs.

I'm not denying the impact of that. But it will continue even if it is relegated to a "black market" commodity. Frankly, I think that Congress has no desire to stem the tide by whatever means. They love power, and influence, and control over the population. They love to feel like Big Brother.