No. of Recommendations: 14
Many of the individuals you call "illegals" are here legally, awaiting their day in an immigration courtroom.-----------------------------
Apparently, there's a thing now where bored, retired billionaires have decided to launch their own platforms on YouTube to explain stuff going on in the world to the rest of us. Maybe they miss PowerPoint presentations. Who knows.
One of those billionaires opting for this retirement hobby is Steve Ballmer who launched a platform called USAFacts. I saw this video the other day that does a great job showing the breakdown of all the categorizations of immigrants in the country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt91pxCd0qA&t=310sBeginning at 5:10 in the video, a breakdown is provided for the category of "Unauthorized Immigrant". The key point in that summary, though Ballmer doesn't actualy say it, is the term "unauthorized" for the category isn't intentionally misleading but it lends itself to being used to mislead people by over-generalizing the sub-categories within.
The average American hearing the term "unauthorized" will likely leap to the conclusion that some judicial process has already analyzed the circumstances of each person in the "unauthorized" bucket and deemed them NOT AUTHORIZED. That's not how the term is actually being used. It is literally ONLY being used to identify a group that is not YET explicitly AUTHORIZED. There's a difference.
Here are the sub-categories of the "unauthorized" bucket:
* entered the country undetected
* entered the country then later asked for asylum
* those who overstayed an approved visa * requested asylum at a port of entry
* entered under humanitarian agreement
* those granted temporary protected statusIt can be argued the categories in
bold involve those breaking the law who merit removal by not honoring the conditions of entry or the conditions of a prior visa requiring them to leave.
It is absolute fact that the categories in
italics are not "illegal" immigrants who need to be removed. If you arrive and seek asylum at a port of entry, US laws conforming with United Nations treaties require such parties to be given a hearing to make a decision on their eligibility to remain under various terms. The fact that said review can take several YEARS because Congress refuses to increase funding to provide the resources to operate those courts isn't the fault of the asylum seeker. Those entering America under specific humanitarian agreements regarding conflict zones etc. ARE here "legally", they just don't have a path to citizenship nor even a long term guaranteed right to remain in the country. Ditto for those matching specific protected statuses for religious, ethnic or other social factors of persecution elsewhere.
Words matter. "Unauthorized" doesn't one hundred percent equate to "illegal" or "undesirable." It is only an umbrella term for a sub-set of individuals not in some other bucket with an established path to citizenship.
WTH
