No. of Recommendations: 12
I suspect with more than superficial vetting, it would be a lot lower. I still submit it is impossible to vet someone who 1) has no id and 2) comes from a country who keeps poor or no records in any form readily accessible to vetting authorities and 3) with 300,000 to vet each month can only spend a few minutes on each case.
I think you're confusing the initial screening with the final judicial decision on the asylum application. The initial screening is fairly cursory, but the final hearing is more of a trial - and the burden is on the claimant to prove their case. There aren't 300,000 cases that go to final determination every month (again, that's the initial screening) - which is why there's such a huge backlog. If the initial screening were more rigorous, the percentage of cases where asylum was granted would go up, because a higher proportion of the cases that made it past the more rigorous screening would be legitimate.
When 40% are ultimately approved after 4 or 5 years as used as justification for not securing the border, you ignore the even higher cost of supporting the 60% that are not approved who have been living here 4+ years along side those who are approved. The cost of them alone justifies a border wall.
No, it supports spending money for more immigration courts and judges so that it doesn't take four or five years to get these cases through the system. If we processed the asylum claims more quickly, you wouldn't have to bear the cost of supporting the ones who ultimately are found not to be eligible for asylum. With enough immigration judges, you could even get the "pending" population down to a small enough number that you could keep them in detention until their hearing.
Note Border Wall is defined as a set all the security measures necessary to prevent 99% of illegal crossing. May be a physical wall in many places but also drones, videos, motion censors, and anything else the BORDER Agents say they need, backed up with enough border agents to intercept an illegal crosser within minutes of crossing, coupled with the authority to immediately deport the law breaker for being here without coming through an official port of entry.
Then why call that a "Border Wall," except to be provocative? It's not a wall, and it's not preventing the crossing. Nearly two-thirds of the southern border is in the middle of the river, so if you know that you're not building a wall at the border along those 1,200 miles (and many other areas where the literal border is somewhere that a wall can't physically be built), the only relevant change you're talking about is to allow summary deportation. Catching an illegal crosser within minutes of crossing isn't preventing the illegal crossing. Nor is it much different than what we have now - again, the main problem that we're dealing with is what to do after these folks choose to turn themselves in.
Sure, if you changed the law to allow summary deportations - without giving them a chance for an actual hearing on their asylum claims - you could make a big dent in the problem. But it's not like the Administration can or should take the blame for that not happening. Because that type of a change requires Congressional approval, and it would never, ever get through Congress no matter what Biden did.
