Post New

Since the gauntlet was thrown down and some other posters are trying to pretend that’s the be-all, end-all to the debate, it seems an answer is needed. Lazily poking around we find stuff like this:

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/biden-executi...

During his first 364 days as president, Biden took 296 executive actions on immigration—as compared to 86 during Trump's first year and 472 during the entire Trump presidency, analysts Muzaffar Chishti and Jessica Bolter write in a new article for MPI’s online journal, the Migration Information Source. Of Biden’s 296 immigration actions, 89 have reversed or started to undo Trump policies, making clear the administration is doing more than unraveling his predecessor’s policies.

The Biden administration’s actions cover a wide range of issues—greatly narrowing the number of unauthorized immigrants vulnerable to arrest, detention and removal; lifting some barriers to U.S. entry and to accessing immigration benefits; and raising the refugee resettlement ceiling to 125,000.

The administration also has acted to protect as many as 1 million noncitizens from deportation and give them eligibility to apply for a work permit by expanding Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals from Venezuela and Myanmar who are already in the United States; extending TPS designations that Trump sought to terminate for other nationalities but was blocked by the courts from carrying out; and by allowing certain victims of crime who are petitioning for a U visa to receive deferred action while awaiting their visa adjudication.

Still, chaotic responses to high levels of migration at the southern border and lack of progress on two key Biden campaign promises—legalization for the country’s unauthorized immigrant population and rebuilding a border asylum system largely dismantled during the prior administration—have fueled public perception that the administration has done little on immigration.

We have the current border situation because Biden wants it this way, period.

Hmm. What all *could* be done administratively?

Let’s look at amnesty. This is how every open border group does it - they say, “Go to the US and make a bull$h1t amnesty claim”. Then you can be released into the country with your court date in 2031. democrats then throw up their hands and say, “What can you do?” with a wink and a nod.

What are some of these rules? Let’s assume immigration lawyers know the laws:

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/wha...

Typically, granting of amnesty is done on an individual, case by case basis. Most cases of amnesty, however, require that an individual meet certain requirements, including:

Not having a record of criminal charges;
Residing in the U.S. continuously, usually 10-20 years usually; and
Showing that the individual will not be a “charge,” or burden, to the state if granted citizenship.

Hmm. The first one is tricky, and almost impossible to prove. Seems like a DNA sample and fingerprints plus a facial scan is in order, to process against known individuals on DOJ or DHS watch lists. Meantime, the parties can Remain in Mexico.

The last one is easier to deal with. Upon collection of the personal information, create a database and periodically check it against state IDs. When someone is found to be collecting benefits from some state send a notice to said state that funding for X or Y is under review pending the outcome of an investigation for abuse of benefits: in other words, provide the states who want to..get around…the rules an incentive to comply.

But that won’t work, as places like California and others will thumb their noses and or conduct lawfare in response. No problem! Getting them to stop was never the point of the exercise; nahhhhhh…that’s too easy.

The point of the exercise is to figure out who’s who in terms of willingness to consume state resources in support of an open borders policy. Once those states have been identified then *all* migrants apprehended at the border shall be shipped straightaway to these states.

Say, on the subject of welfare, who really uses it? Let’s find out.

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-...

This report is based on newly released data from the 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Analysis of this data shows both immigrants and the U.S.-born make extensive use of means-tested anti-poverty programs, with immigrant households significantly more likely to receive benefits. This is primarily because the American welfare system is designed in large part to help low-income families with children, which describes a large share of immigrants. The ability of immigrants, including illegal immigrants, to receive welfare benefits on behalf of U.S.-born citizen children is a key reason why restrictions on welfare use for new legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants, are relatively ineffective.

Among the findings:

The 2022 SIPP indicates that 54 percent of households headed by immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants — used one or more major welfare program. This compares to 39 percent for U.S.-born households.
The rate is 59 percent for non-citizen households (e.g. green card holders and illegal immigrants).


Wait a minute. I thought illegals couldn’t get welfare?
Our best estimate is that 59 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants, also called the undocumented, use at least one major program. We have no evidence this is due to fraud. Among legal immigrants we estimate the rate is 52 percent.
Illegal immigrants can receive welfare on behalf of U.S.-born children, and illegal immigrant children can receive school lunch/breakfast and WIC directly. A number of states provide Medicaid to some illegal adults and children, and a few provide SNAP. Several million illegal immigrants also have work authorization (e.g. DACA, TPS, and some asylum applicants) allowing receipt of the EITC.

As this thread continues, the name calling will begin:

Dope, you’re a monster. Don’t you know what the Statue of Liberty says?

Why do you hate immigrants so much?

Why do you hate kids?

and so on and so forth. Let’s answer these as well.

Know what every single illegal immigrant has in common? Their fist act upon heading to their new country was to violate its laws. That’s hardly a I Love My New Country resume builder.

Immigration built this country. As in, Legal Immigration built this country. Right there where the Statue of Liberty is sits Ellis Island which…screened people coming in.

For some reason when the pious post about the words on the statue, they forget about the processing office next door.

Let’s look at amnesty. This is how every open border group does it - they say, “Go to the US and make a bull$h1t amnesty claim”. Then you can be released into the country with your court date in 2031. democrats then throw up their hands and say, “What can you do?” with a wink and a nod.

You're confusing amnesty and asylum. The current immigration problems are caused by people claiming asylum. Not amnesty.

Unlike past waves of people seeking entry to the U.S., asylum seekers are allowed to present their claims while in the U.S. (even if they crossed the border illegally) and don't have to leave the U.S. for their claims to be granted. Those claims do not require meeting the criteria you describe, which are used to establish citizenship and not a lawful right to remain in the U.S. They are typically resolved (on average) in about four and a half years. If you don't have the money to detain them in camps (and thus feed and clothe and house them for years), and you don't have the money to speed up the review of their asylum claims, you have to figure out what to do with them for that time period.

The TPS measures (and many others) you describe in your prior posts upthread are administrative efforts to try to deal with this problem. People who are pending their asylum claims generally can't work, which puts enormous strain on the communities they're living in. If you grant them TPS status, they can get jobs and hopefully provide for themselves instead of living on the dole. Those are measures that can be taken to try to mitigate the consequences of migrants that are in the U.S., but they can't keep the migrants out of the U.S. - or keep them out of the communities, unless you set up a few hundred thousand detention center beds. Which costs money, which requires Congress....well, you know the rest.

albany: You're confusing amnesty and asylum. The current immigration problems are caused by people claiming asylum. Not amnesty.

Thank you once again for clearly explaining many legal concepts that I (and obviously many others here) don't fully understand.

Very helpful.

Let’s look at amnesty. This is how every open border group does it - they say, “Go to the US and make a bull$h1t amnesty claim”. Then you can be released into the country with your court date in 2031. democrats then throw up their hands and say, “What can you do?” with a wink and a nod.

Nonsense.

Almost all Democrats want workable immigration policies, laws and regulations. What we have now is a mess. It's something Congress needs to deal with!

You're confusing amnesty and asylum. The current immigration problems are caused by people claiming asylum. Not amnesty. - albaby1

--------------

It seems to me that amnesty is exactly the problem. Progressives will not agree to any immigration reform that does not provide a path to citizenship to those already here. Amnesty now, border security later. Reagan got tricked by agreeing to that one.

albany: You're confusing amnesty and asylum. The current immigration problems are caused by people claiming asylum. Not amnesty.

Thank you once again for clearly explaining many legal concepts that I (and obviously many others here) don't fully understand.

Very helpful - ges

-----------------

Speak for yourself, I and most here, are well educated and understand the difference in the two words. You are attempting to dismiss your opponents arguments by claiming their concerns and ideas are rooted in misunderstanding plain English.

You are attempting to dismiss your opponents arguments by claiming their concerns and ideas are rooted in misunderstanding plain English.

Not really. In the past, Dope has substituted amnesty for asylum - but in a context in which it was clear that he intended to mean asylum. So I haven't nitpicked, and just went on with the discussion.

In this post, though, he didn't merely use the wrong term. He quoted the substantive standards that apply to amnesty (not asylum), and provided a link to a discussion of the various aspects of applying for amnesty (not asylum). So I pointed out that asylum and amnesty are two very different concepts and legal procedures.

I'm not dismissing his arguments, and I've continually tried to engage thoughtfully in a conversation about them. But again, much of the problem at the border isn't resulting from maladministration by DHS but because our entire system of border security is geared towards apprehending illegal crossers that aren't requesting asylum. So in the past, many of the people who get caught by DHS were simply placed into an expedited removal proceeding and sent home (typically Mexico). Now, though, so many of these folks are requesting asylum - and they're not eligible for expedited removal.

The system just isn't built for having hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers waiting four to five years for a hearing. That's not a failure to make initial apprehensions or catch people as they're crossing the border - it's a failure to have any system in place for what to do after you catch them. Congress won't pay to keep them in camps for years; Congress won't pay to speed up the immigration hearings; Congress won't pay for physical barriers (for a variety of reasons). Until they do, it's not a problem that can be solved by a President.

Which is what I'm trying to coax out of Dope - his idea for how a President can respond to an asylum crush. Trump didn't have an answer until the pandemic, so just being demonstratively unwelcoming to asylum seekers isn't going to work. And I noted in my previous post, CDC/Title 42 isn't a remedy any more, either. So I'm curious to see what he thinks Biden is doing wrong, as opposed to just dealing with an issue unsolvable by the Executive alone.

I wasn't aware Title 42 was off the table. Well, except for there being no pandemic anymore. But SCOTUS limited its scope further? I missed that bit.

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.