Post New

...but you bet they do. Let's ask AOC what she thinks we should do to solve the border crisis:

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/17440702719...

"You can either fix it by trying to build a wall. Or you can fix it by documenting people.",

Uh, huh. Why have a border at all, then?

OCASIO-CORTEZ From all parts of the political spectrum, one of the biggest issues that we have when it comes to immigration is the fact that we have an undocumented population. Now, you can fix that by trying to build a wall, or you can fix that by trying to document people and create a path to citizenship (wild applause).

So just...make everyone a citizen.

Uh, huh. Why have a border at all, then?

Proof positive there is such a thing as a stupid question.

The orange rapist says Nicki Haley is too soft on immigration... but she isn't a rapist.

>>Uh, huh. Why have a border at all, then?<<

Proof positive there is such a thing as a stupid question.

The orange rapist says Nicki Haley is too soft on immigration... but she isn't a rapist.

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

Sano, you amaze me. I am sure you could work a jab at Trump into a recipe for chocolate chip cookies.

You should offer your services as a speechwriter for Biden. Biden held his 2024 coming out campaign event this week. In his 30 minute speech, he mentioned Trump by name 44 times. Heck, you could say hold my beer to that.

"Sano, you amaze me. I am sure you could work a jab at Trump into a recipe for chocolate chip cookies."

Just another Johnny one note, not much substance to these folks posturings .

I didn’t read his post, but I assume he has zero to say about democrat darling AOC’s plan.

And why should he? That view represents a fair amount of people in his party…and he knows it. Rather than address it and admit the fringe left wing is full of bad ideas that Biden’s been merrily implementing, he has to post that inane stuff.

Reality always sucks for them.

Just another Johnny one note, not much substance to these folks posturings.

Have you notice the lefties here all regurgitate the same blarney over and over?
rapist, orange, cult etc etc, Not one has an original thought.
So boring. Read one lefty post, you read them all.
I’m even hoping they come up with some new buzz words just to keep my interest
and finish reading their posts.

AOC a "Democrat darling"? Get real. She would have no chance in a primary (say in 2028). The progressive wing loves her because she is one of the few progressives in office today.

She does not appeal to the vast majority of Dems, and actually irritates them when she attacks mainstream Dems, which is relatively often.

You should offer your services as a speechwriter for Biden. Biden held his 2024 coming out campaign event this week. In his 30 minute speech, he mentioned Trump by name 44 times. Heck, you could say hold my beer to that.

Thank you. IMHO, most of the responses merit no more effort than is put into it, yet are as effective as lengthy fact and data-filled posts in educating the cultists who pretend to not be supporters of the narcissistic orange rapist.

Denigrating a popular racist rapist and his cult is like shooting fish in a barrel on 5th Avenue.

Just another Johnny one note, not much substance to these folks posturings

Offering substance to cultists is tantamount to pearls before swine.

When evidence indicates otherwise, there shall be substance.

Until that day, it's 3 balls for a quarter at the cultist's dunk tank.

Denigrating a popular racist rapist and his cult

Oh yawn, just as I previously said, read one post from the left here and you’ve read them all.
The left here are parrots. Please, have your dem sponsors telling you what to say to come
up with some new buzz words. Youseguys are boring me to no end.

Getting back on subject, since they don't want to talk about it. The White House is actually negotiating AND is allegedly putting their Open Borders policy on the table.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-talks-congress...

While the senators and the White House have reached high-level agreements on tightening asylum interviews, expanding expedited deportations and creating an authority to expel migrants without humanitarian screenings when border agents are overwhelmed, the negotiators have not resolved their differences on some key issues. Among those issues is immigration parole, a legal tool used by the Biden administration to resettle hundreds of thousands of migrants that Republicans want to severely limit.

Biden's "immigration parole" is the nice name for his open border policy. The scam works like this:

*Cross the border and get caught
*Biden gives you a phone with an app and a court date of 8 years from now
*You are released into the country and go on your merry way.

No one expects any of these people to show up in 2031 for their "court hearing".

Senior White House officials have previously told [d]emocrats in Congress that they would not accept the Republican demands to restrict parole. But during a White House meeting on Friday, Mr. Biden's advisers recognized that a border deal with Republicans would not be possible without the administration agreeing on limiting parole, people briefed on those talks told CBS News. Accepting restrictions on parole would be a significant concession to Republicans, since Biden has relied so heavily on the policy.

And this, folks, is how you open the border while claiming you're not opening the border.

Another example of an administrative policy that does not require Congress.

Biden's "immigration parole" is the nice name for his open border policy. The scam works like this:

*Cross the border and get caught
*Biden gives you a phone with an app and a court date of 8 years from now
*You are released into the country and go on your merry way.

No one expects any of these people to show up in 2031 for their "court hearing". - Dope

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

And even if the republicans get all sorts of much needed curtailments in the legislation, experience has shown, finding someone in the Biden Admin to seriously enforce it is not exactly a sure thing.

I know, pass a second law, mandating the first law be implemented in its entirety.

Another example of an administrative policy that does not require Congress. - Dope

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

Albaby schooled us on the situation is immutable without legislation. So where is this discretion coming from?

I am all of a sudden skeptical of this deal, whatever it says, if all that is backing it is a handshake. If you all are in such agreement then pass a law re-definig the "rights" of an asylum seeker and the supremacy of the united states to regulate its borders.

Dope1: Getting back on subject, since they don't want to talk about it.

What's there to talk about? You cherry-picked a single sentence from a two-month old conversation with AOC on The Daily Show which had nothing to do with "policy." Refuting your nonsense is a never ending job.

For example:

Biden's "immigration parole" is the nice name for his open border policy. The scam works like this:

*Cross the border and get caught
*Biden gives you a phone with an app and a court date of 8 years from now
*You are released into the country and go on your merry way.

No one expects any of these people to show up in 2031 for their "court hearing".

Not a single word of that is true.

Generally, parole is available to Ukrainians, Afghans, Venezuelans, and vetted nationals of Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua. Parolees from Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua must have a sponsor for financial support, must arrive by airplane, and their stay is limited to two years.

A major parole program is the federal Uniting for Ukraine initiative but since republicans in Congress tend to side with Russia, you can understand why they'd want to eliminate that program.

Parolees must apply for asylum or pursue other immigration pathways. Failing those methods, they can reapply to extend their parole before it expires.

Parole does not provide a direct path to lawful permanent residence in the U.S.

And contrary to your usual nonsense, this is not a Biden administration program: the U.S. has granted parole for decades.

Here, maybe you'll learn something though I doubt it: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2023/0120/Immigratio...

Albaby schooled us on the situation is immutable without legislation. So where is this discretion coming from?

The Administration has limited discretion in certain circumstances, mostly involved with what happens to asylees while they're waiting for their hearing.

Dope's assessment upthread was factually wrong in a few key points. Typical asylum cases get resolved after about 4.5 years, and most asylum seekers do show up for their hearings. And many of those asylees are granted asylum - about 30-40% win their cases.

The really difficult issues come up when trying to figure out how to manage the asylee population pending their cases. By law, they're entitled to their court hearing. So you have a few different options:

1) Detain them. Lock them up in camps while their hearing is pending. There are quite a few problems with doing this, though. Mostly, it's very expensive, and we just don't have the funds appropriated to feed, clothe, house, and provide medicine for all these people for several years while their cases are waiting. But it's also illegal to detain minor children for more than a month, and it's near-impossible to manage a system where they're separated from their families for years and then reunited at the end.

2) Release them into the U.S. (without more). This is the current result for a large number of asylees. The main problem here is that while the federal government no longer has to pay for their well-being if they're not detained, they're also not legally permitted to work - so they can't really support themselves, either. So the same problem exists (who pays?), but it gets shifted to state or local governments (or charities).

3) Release them into the U.S. and parole them or give them TPS. This is the scenario that Biden has pursued for some asylee classes (like Venezuelans), and which AOC is probably advocating. You end up in the same situation as #2, but now the migrants can actually work for a living while they're awaiting their hearings. There are economic impacts to that, but you don't have state or local governments being crushed.

4) Speed up the judicial system. Basically, this translates into setting up more immigration courts and hiring more immigration judges. Rather than have everyone wait for 4.5 years, get them in front of a judge in a matter of months. You could reduce the number of pending asylum cases by 90% without having to worry about either detaining them or letting them live in the U.S. for years. If they win they get their green card, if they lose they're deported. That seems like it would be a win-win, and it would be if Dope was right about migrants mostly claiming asylum as a pretext. The problem with this solution, though, is that asylees generally have a good chance to win their cases - so speeding up their cases means that you end up with lots of newly-granted green cards, which conservatives do not want. Also, this also requires massive funding, which the Administration can't do on its own.

5) Find somewhere else for them to wait. That was Trump's "Remain in Mexico" solution - basically, find another country that's willing to suffer all the adverse consequences to people stuck in limbo that we're unwilling to stomach. Hard to do....Mexico's not going to agree to that again, and there aren't really any other candidates.


The President has the ability to tinker, at the edges, with what happens to asylees during the time between apprehension and their hearings. But not the ability to change the laws that govern asylum, or to make funding magically appear for either detention centers or more courts/judges.

What's there to talk about

Our open southern border, for starters.

Not a single word of that is true.

Except that it is, and lane attempts by you to erect straw men like this


Parole does not provide a direct path to lawful permanent residence in the U.S.

Lying about what I said does t help your cause.

Try again.

Dope's assessment upthread was factually wrong in a few key points. Typical asylum cases get resolved after about 4.5 years,<.i>

Sorry. I’m right, and your information is woefully out of date.

https://www.newsweek.com/migrants-check-date-delay...

Amid the growing migrant crisis, a migrant processed into the US as an asylum seeker was given a check-in date to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in New York for eight years from today.

2031. 8 years. And the court appearance is in New York.

I’m suuuuuure this person will show up and appear.

30-40% isn’t even a majority, much less “most” who win their cases.

I do agree with you that changing the asylum process required some Congressional fixes.

Right now the asylum program is being grossly abused and that needs to be addressed ASAP.

A;ways in the back of my mind, my solution with them staying in Mexicao, was cutting a deal where Mexico got soemthing, hoping we could dl it much cheaper in Mexico. :) But I had no idea how to estimate it. So we build a small area in Mexico (lotsa money), give Mexico something ( more moeny) and have the problem on the other side of the border. Until they cross anyway. I didn't like throwing them in jail as that cost momey.

No matter what avenue I took, it cost lotsa money.

No matter what avenue I took, it cost lotsa money.

Yup. We’re going to have to pay Mexico. But that’s better than the chaos we’re getting in our cities.

A legislative change we could make is to mandate that unless you’re from a bordering country to the US that asylum applications must be made at a US embassy.

5) Find somewhere else for them to wait. That was Trump's "Remain in Mexico" solution - basically, find another country that's willing to suffer all the adverse consequences to people stuck in limbo that we're unwilling to stomach. Hard to do....Mexico's not going to agree to that again, and there aren't really any other candidates.

===================================


6) Beef up border security seriously by an order of magnitude if necessary dare I say wall AND ensure all but a tiny fraction stay on their side of the wall until and unless the US opens the door for them in some limitied and measured way. And the hidden message to Mexico, if you let them into your country, you are going to be stuck with most of them.

Right now the asylum program is being grossly abused and that needs to be addressed ASAP.

It's not being grossly abused.

As I mentioned upthread, about 30-40% of asylum cases are resolved in favor of the applicant(s). That's actually a really high win rate, given that nearly all of these folks are poor, don't necessarily speak English, and most don't have access to a lawyer (unlike criminal cases, the government doesn't have to provide them with counsel). On a level playing field, it's more likely than not that asylum would be granted in a given case.

That's completely inconsistent with the idea that these are mostly pretextual claims. The issue isn't people grossly abusing the system - the issue is that conditions are such in large areas of the continent (and other parts of the world, but it's the Central Triangle that's really a big source of these cases) that so many people qualify for asylum.

That's the reason why the GOP won't give the Democrats what Democrats want to fix the system - more immigration courts and more immigration judges, to cut the wait times down from years to months. Because the GOP knows that these aren't pretextual claims, and the program isn't being grossly abused. If you let people have their asylum claims be quickly and fairly heard, rather than being a years-long drawn out process where they can't work to support their families, then that ends up with too many successful asylum cases. And it would deprive them of a powerful political point. They don't want to go back to their constituents and have to explain that, no, these aren't terrible people but actually people that are justifiably and legitimately seeking asylum in our country, as the law says they can.

The problem is that making things unnecessarily more horrible for the asylees also makes things more horrible for the communities that they're in while they wait for the hearing they're legally entitled to. But that's just collateral damage from the policy of not having enough judges and courts. Typically, if people are waiting four+ years for their trial date, the obvious solution would be to hire some more judges so they don't have to wait that long - but that's politically unpalatable for the GOP, so they try to avoid it. And to cover that failure, they try to persuade their constituents that the system is being abused, rather than being starved for resources.

6) Beef up border security seriously by an order of magnitude if necessary dare I say wall AND ensure all but a tiny fraction stay on their side of the wall until and unless the US opens the door for them in some limited and measured way.

That can't work. You can't build a wall on most of the border. The border's in the river. You can't build a wall in the river. You can't build it on the bank of the river, because the river level rises and falls. Any wall/fence you build is going to be many, many yards of dry land away from the river. By the time the migrants get to whatever wall you build, they're already on U.S. soil.

Remember the video the other day, with the migrant family wading the river? The Border Patrol officer was literally right there. You can't get better security than that. But all the Border Patrol can ever do is catch them. He can't shoot them, he can't physically force them back into Mexico - all of that would be illegal. All he can do is detain them, and if they make a claim for asylum then they can't be summarily deported.

The best security in the world can only make sure that anyone trying to cross the border is spotted and dealt with. You can't physically keep them from crossing the line. And since our problems aren't primarily with people crossing the line without being caught, but what to do with them after they get caught (more like turn themselves in as quickly as they can), border security can't solve this problem.

The best security in the world can only make sure that anyone trying to cross the border is spotted and dealt with.

Which is why more cooperation with Mexico is needed to stop caravans before they reach the border.

You’re wrong on another thing. Mexico will absolutely do Remain In Mexico…and they’re currently driving a hard bargain with Biden on it.

Dope1: You’re wrong on another thing. Mexico will absolutely do Remain In Mexico...

He's right, you're wrong.

The Mexican government has issued statements rejecting any proposed revival of Remain in Mexico.

The Mexican government said on Monday it is opposed to a possible restart of the U.S. immigration policy known as "Remain in Mexico" which required asylum seekers to wait for U.S. hearings in Mexico.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexico-reje...(Reuters,for%20U.S.%20hearings%20in%20Mexico.

No. Your story is from last February.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/biden...


In a press conference on Friday, López Obrador called on the U.S. to approve a plan that would deploy $20 billion to Latin American and Caribbean countries, suspend the U.S. blockade of Cuba, remove all sanctions against Venezuela and grant at least 10 million Hispanics living in the U.S. the right to remain and work legally.

Lopez Obrador has Biden over the barrel.

Lopez Obrador has Biden over the barrel.

If he did he would make demands that Biden could actually grant, rather than just pie-in-the-sky stuff like that. Biden doesn't have the power to "grant at least 10 million Hispanics living in the U.S. the right to remain and work legally," or to repeal the Helms-Burton Act, as AMLO knows full well. That's a list of things that you publicly insist on when you're just posturing, not making a serious demand.

Remain in Mexico is not going to be reinstated. That doesn't mean there aren't some things that Mexico can be pushed to do, at the margins. But nothing that will fundamentally or significantly alter conditions at the border, because there's no deal to be made with Congress on the more significant things that AMLO might want (like your list), because Congress can't agree on any of those issues right now.

dare I say wall

You may dare say it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is nothing but an applause line for Trump at his MAGA rallies. Otherwise just a stupid and extremely wasteful do-nothing project and environmentally destructive to boot.

And many of those asylees are granted asylum - about 30-40% win their cases.

Wow. That high? I thought it was 5%. I'd have to reassess, but I'm more favorable to faster work permits now.

Dope: Lopez Obrador has Biden over the barrel.

How could you possibly come up with a read like this?



AL: If he did he would make demands that Biden could actually grant, rather than just pie-in-the-sky stuff like that. Biden doesn't have the power to "grant at least 10 million Hispanics living in the U.S. the right to remain and work legally," or to repeal the Helms-Burton Act, as AMLO knows full well. That's a list of things that you publicly insist on when you're just posturing, not making a serious demand.

Makes good sound bites for Latin America.

Remain in Mexico is not going to be reinstated. That doesn't mean there aren't some things that Mexico can be pushed to do, at the margins. But nothing that will fundamentally or significantly alter conditions at the border, because there's no deal to be made with Congress on the more significant things that AMLO might want (like your list), because Congress can't agree on any of those issues right now.

Congress thinks any negotiation with Mexico right now is toxic. Much easier just to throw mud at Biden - no Republican loses that way. That's my read. So is this thing going to be carried forward and come to a crescendo right before the elections? I think so. If the Republicans could arrange it, the mother of all caravans would start out in the Darien and make its way up through Latin America and be 500,000 strong pushing ac cross the Guatemalan border and just walk across in this huge million unstoppable mass into the USA. All Republicans win in every race. Ahh, such a red dream. :)

Wow. That high? I thought it was 5%. I'd have to reassess, but I'm more favorable to faster work permits now.

Yep. Don't feel bad - even the lauded Jeh Johnson got that figure wrong when speaking off the cuff a while back. But the number has generally ranged between 30-40% over the last 20 years or so.

Asylum has been granted in about 40% of the nearly 700,000 asylum cases that have been decided since 2000. Immigration judges in that time frame approved about 30% of the applications, or about 420,000 cases, filed by people in deportation proceedings after arriving at the border or after being apprehended within the U.S.

In fiscal year 2022, immigration judges decided 52,000 asylum cases; about 46% of people were granted asylum. The approval rate was closer to 39% for those who applied for asylum as a defense against deportation.

"I acknowledge that I misspoke. The number is closer to 30% or higher," [Jeh] Johnson told PolitiFact.

https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-what-percent...

Yep. Don't feel bad - even the lauded Jeh Johnson got that figure wrong when speaking off the cuff a while back. But the number has generally ranged between 30-40% over the last 20 years or so. - Albaby

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

I too am surprised is is that high. I suspect with more than superficial vetting, it wold 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.

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. Te cost of them alone justifies a border wall.

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. So please stop telling me you can't build a wall in the river. I know that.

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.

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. - Albaby

=============

That is even more scary. The criminals, terrorists, and previous deportees among them are mostly not detected, if at all, until their judicial hearing four years later. They range free on the taxpayer dime until then.

Separate question, is the US obliged to provide processing facilities to accommodate 100% of those who self select to come here in whatever numbers they show up?

That is even more scary. The criminals, terrorists, and previous deportees among them are mostly not detected, if at all, until their judicial hearing four years later. They range free on the taxpayer dime until then.

Not at all. I was referring to the initial asylum screening, which may not be loaded up with paperwork. But the security screening, the decision whether to keep these people in detention or release them pending their hearing, is a whole 'nother matter.

Separate question, is the US obliged to provide processing facilities to accommodate 100% of those who self select to come here in whatever numbers they show up?

We're not obligated to do anything. We do it because we want process them, rather than just let them walk into the country unevaluated and unprocessed.

It's frustrating, when people do things that we don't want them to do. But people who are living in terrible places will try to come here, and we can't physically prevent them from crossing into U.S. territory even if we tell them that we'd prefer that they stay in the terrible place until we give them a thumbs up.

LOL. C’mon, man. As an attorney you’re a trained negotiator. There will be a modified form of Remain in Mexico. Know why?

Because Lopez Obrador wants Joe Biden re-elected.

Why does he want that? With the border being EVEN WORSE than it was the first time Trump won, what kind of a deal do you think he’s going to get from DJT if he wins? It won’t be pretty.

<Dope1: Why does he want that? With the border being EVEN WORSE than it was the first time Trump won, what kind of a deal do you think he’s going to get from DJT if he wins? It won’t be pretty.>

That's putting it euphemistically!...

The entire episode, centered on the swamp draining that shells out the boot licking scumsters from the FBI and DOJ will have enough material to turn into a complete series or made for TV movie. There'll be a central character similar to Robert Stack's Elliot Ness from "The Untouchables".

Ratings will be off the charts.

As an attorney you’re a trained negotiator. There will be a modified form of Remain in Mexico. Know why?

Because Lopez Obrador wants Joe Biden re-elected.

Not as much as AMLO wants to remain in power. The reason there won't be a significant re-establishment of Remain in Mexico is the same reason that you think (correctly) that this is a big election issue for Biden. Having lots of asylees hanging around the border for a few years, without the ability to legally work, is a huge burden on the government and those communities. Right now, that's a huge burden on the U.S. AMLO suffers politically if it becomes a huge burden on Mexico instead.

Biden just doesn't have much to offer AMLO, since big changes in U.S. immigration or economic policy require Congressional approval (which will not be forthcoming). In fact, AMLO might correctly calculate that he's got a better chance of a better deal under Trump, rather than Biden - because Trump will be far more motivated to be seen as the guy that "fixed" the border than Biden. Sure, as a defensive political maneuver Biden would like the border to not be as salient an issue going into November - but it's never been one of his political priorities. Meanwhile, there's probably no single policy issue that's higher on Trump's list of priorities than to be the man who fixes the border.

So if what AMLO really wants is State Department support for his efforts to bypass the Supreme Court, neutralize the Instituto Nacional Electoral, and cement Morena as the new PRI....well, Trump would trade that for border control in a heartbeat, while Biden never would.

I acknowledge that I misspoke. The number is closer to 30% or higher," [Jeh] Johnson told PolitiFact.

Thanks, Albaby, I googled, found this, scanned it, and have been reading it for understanding. Heady stuff. I think it needs three reads for understanding. But the footnotes:

[1] As a matter of practice, asylum seekers who cross the border unlawfully are currently typically assigned by DHS to the defensive asylum path in the Immigration Courts, even though their sole purpose for crossing was to affirmatively request asylum. The Biden administration has proposed a change in policy that would provide these asylum seekers with a hearing before USCIS asylum officers. The proposed rule change is explained by former Immigration and Naturalization Service Director Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute here.

[2] Despite the many nuanced legal differences between affirmative and defensive asylum, perhaps the most important practical difference is that affirmative asylum interviews take place in an administrative, non-adversarial (or at least less adversarial) setting with an asylum officer and with the option of having an attorney and interpreter present, but without an opposing counsel. In contrast, defensive asylum hearings take place in an adversarial setting in Immigration Court with an Immigration Judge and an opposing attorney from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

I never realized there were two different routes with different settings. Enlightening.

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/667/

Note Border Wall is defined as a set all the security measures necessary to prevent 99% of illegal crossing.

Sorry, you don't get to redefine it at whim, and especially if you don't link to a reputable cite.

Not as much as AMLO wants to remain in power. The reason there won't be a significant re-establishment of Remain in Mexico is the same reason that you think (correctly) that this is a big election issue for Biden.

There will be *something*. Lopez Obrador knows he has to do something to make it look like Biden is actually being effective on the border.

Oh, by the way. Here’s how to vote if you’re not a citizen in Arizona:

https://azsos.gov/elections/voters/register-vote-u...

Important Information Regarding Proof of Citizenship

A person must be a U.S. citizen in order to register and vote.

A person who submits valid proof of citizenship with his or her voter registration form (regardless of the type of form submitted) is entitled to vote in all federal, state, county and local elections in which he or she is eligible. The voter registration form otherwise must be sufficiently complete.

A person is not required to submit proof of citizenship with the voter registration form, but failure to do so means the person will only be eligible to vote in federal elections (known as being a "federal only" voter). A "federal only" voter will become eligible to vote a "full ballot" in all federal, state, county and local elections if he or she later provides valid proof of citizenship to the appropriate County Recorder's office.

Federal only voters may use the Federal Voter Registration form, available here:

The link to the federal site goes nowhere.

Not at all. I was referring to the initial asylum screening, which may not be loaded up with paperwork. But the security screening, the decision whether to keep these people in detention or release them pending their hearing, is a whole 'nother matter. - Albaby

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

Certainly nothing to be proud of when 60% of those you release end up being judged ineligible. But then when you are vetting ghosts with no established identity, it is hard to say...

But people who are living in terrible places will try to come here, and we can't physically prevent them from crossing into U.S. territory even if we tell them that we'd prefer that they stay in the terrible place until we give them a thumbs up. - albaby

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

That is a defeatist attitude. We may not be able to literally prevent all of them but we can cut that and control that to some degree through deploying the bhm patented euphemistic wall. How about this, any migrant caught on the US side of the border without the ability to show they came through a point of entry automatically loses their right to claim asylum and therefore can be immediately deported.

That is a defeatist attitude. We may not be able to literally prevent all of them but we can cut that and control that to some degree through deploying the bhm patented euphemistic wall. How about this, any migrant caught on the US side of the border without the ability to show they came through a point of entry automatically loses their right to claim asylum and therefore can be immediately deported.

I intended to conclude with, "Word will spread"...

Sure, as a defensive political maneuver Biden would like the border to not be as salient an issue going into November - but it's never been one of his political priorities. Meanwhile, there's probably no single policy issue that's higher on Trump's list of priorities than to be the man who fixes the border. - Albaby

===============

Music to my ears man. I will take that even if it comes with some mean tweets..

Note Border Wall is defined as a set all the security measures necessary to prevent 99% of illegal crossing.

Sorry, you don't get to redefine it at whim, and especially if you don't link to a reputable cite. - Lapsody

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

Sure I do for sake of brevity on this board. You can learn that vocabulary just as I have learned when sano says orange menace he means Trump.

A person is not required to submit proof of citizenship with the voter registration form, but failure to do so means the person will only be eligible to vote in federal elections (known as being a "federal only" voter).

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

How on earth does something like this get into the law. We are governed by people who diminish the value of citizenship.

How on earth does something like this get into the law. We are governed by people who diminish the value of citizenship.

Heh. Prior to being elected governor, Katie Hobbs [d] was Arizona's Secretary of State. I don't know if this was a policy change she made or if the previous governor signed this into law.

Lopez Obrador knows he has to do something to make it look like Biden is actually being effective on the border.

He doesn't have to do something. He doesn't have to do anything. Sure, AMLO might prefer that Biden be re-elected rather than Trump - but that's only going to be a preference, and he's not going to do anything that carries a big domestic political price just to help Biden out.

Here’s how to vote if you’re not a citizen in Arizona

You can't vote if you're not a citizen in Arizona. It's a crime to do so.

Certainly nothing to be proud of when 60% of those you release end up being judged ineligible. But then when you are vetting ghosts with no established identity, it is hard to say...

Ineligible for asylum, not ineligible for release pending asylum. And a 40% success rate for asylees is huge, given the enormous hurdles for them to successfully litigate their claims against the federal government.

How about this, any migrant caught on the US side of the border without the ability to show they came through a point of entry automatically loses their right to claim asylum and therefore can be immediately deported.

Again, you have to change the laws to do that. The executive can't just do that on their own.

Such a law isn't likely to pass Congress, either. You're thinking of random asylees today, but what drives the policy debate is a desire to avoid repeating the MS St. Louis incident - where a boatful of Jews seeking asylum from Nazi Germany was turned away. What differentiates asylum from regular immigration requests is that the asylee's home country is persecuting them, and might simply kill them if they are forced to go back. That's why asylees aren't deported until they get their hearing - because if they were at risk of being harmed in their home country, and you sent them back anyway until the hearing could happen, you've basically defeated the purpose of the hearing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis#The_%22...

You can't vote if you're not a citizen in Arizona. It's a crime to do so.

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

That is why there are no car jackings in Arizona, it is a crime to do so as well.

Ineligible for asylum, not ineligible for release pending asylum.- Albaby

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

Of course. Are we talking past each other. I am saying the 60% that are eligible for parole but ultimately are ineligible for asylum are evidence of the inadequacy of the vetting process at the border.

You can't vote if you're not a citizen in Arizona. It's a crime to do so.

Sure. But as anyone who lives in a blue city knows, committing a "crime" only matters if the authorities are willing to arrest and prosecute you.

How is shoplifting being a crime in San Francisco working out?

How on earth does something like this get into the law.

Because Arizona wanted to find a way around the National Voter Registration Act ("NRVA"), also known as the "Motor Voter" law.

Back in the day, Arizona adopted a set of laws that would require anyone registering to vote to have to provide proof of citizenship. A number of groups challenged the law on a few grounds, but primarily that it violated the NRVA. Basically, the NRVA establishes a form for registering for elections, and the argument went that a state can't add to that form.

Went to the Supreme Court, and Arizona lost 7-2. Can't add requirements that are inconsistent with the NVRA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Inter_Tri....

So they had a great idea. The NRVA can regulate federal matters, but Arizona can still regulate registration for state and local elections. So they amended their election laws to create two types of voter registration - a basket of voters that get registered for all elections (federal, state and local), and a second basket of voters that are "federal-only" - and imposed the extra documentation requirement only on the first basket. Which is most voters, but essentially trying to avoid the NRVA statutes by having this separate "federal only" bucket that doesn't require additional paperwork (but which is still a crime to vote if you're not a citizen).

Albaby

Are we talking past each other. I am saying the 60% that are eligible for parole but ultimately are ineligible for asylum are evidence of the inadequacy of the vetting process at the border.

How? The "vetting" takes place at the trial. People are entitled to a hearing on their asylum claims, in front of a judge. Not in front of a Border Patrol agent. The initial review isn't intended to be a final adjudication of their claims, just whether they're presenting enough of a claim to warrant actually going to the trial.

Honestly, with a success rate of 40% by the time you get to trial, it's probably evidence that the initial vetting is too strict, rather than too lose. If claimants are winning nearly half the time when they get to court, it means that the claimant population in general has pretty strong arguments for asylum.

Honestly, with a success rate of 40% by the time you get to trial, it's probably evidence that the initial vetting is too strict, rather than too lose. If claimants are winning nearly half the time when they get to court, it means that the claimant population in general has pretty strong arguments for asylum. -Albaby

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

You seem to be indifferent to the resources consumes by the 60%. To me it is an outrage.

You seem to be indifferent to the resources consumes by the 60%. To me it is an outrage.

I'm not. I absolutely think that we should be bolstering the immigration review system so that these folks aren't waiting 4.5 years for a court date. Even if you forget that this is an unconscionable way to treat people who generally have a decent claim that they're being persecuted by their home governments, it's foolish not to devote resources to speeding that up given how many resources are consumed by the excessive wait times.

What I'm pushing back on is the idea that you can just have a random Border Patrol officer make these decisions. They can't. It's the old Law and Order intro: you two separate but equally important groups, the Border Patrol (who monitor the border and apprehend crossers) and the immigration judges and lawyers (who decide the merits of asylum claims). A Border Patrol officer isn't a lawyer or judge, and they're neither trained for or tasked with making final determinations on the status of asylum claims as part of detention review.

If you don't like the amount of resources consumed by the 60%, there's an easy fix. Once they've lost their asylum cases, they can be deported. It's only because we refuse to properly fund the immigration judicial process sufficient to requirements that they end up hanging around for so long. It would be so much cheaper and less disruptive to everyone involved to get that time frame down to months rather than years. But you'd never get that through Congress.

sano doesn't say 'orange menace'. sano says 'orange rapist', because trump, the leader of the right, is a rapist.

Which shows us that bad voting laws go back a ways.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editori...

As PILF rightly argued, the
Motor Voter law
needs to be modified and updated. Its guarantees for greater transparency should be kept or even strengthened, and its loopholes allowing fraud should be closed.

The new report, the most recent in
a series of PILF studies
from across the country, showed that in the past 20 years in Chicago, 394 noncitizens were registered to vote despite properly telling election officials they were not citizens. Of those, 20 cast a total of 85 ballots in real elections. The average length of time that noncitizens stayed on the voter rolls before errors were caught was 7 1/2 years. One noncitizen was on the rolls for 30 years!

For those who will chant, "That's a small number" you should be aware that...

The report covers only those noncitizens who self-reported their status but were registered against Illinois law and arguably against the U.S. Constitution. Incentives weigh overwhelmingly against self-reporting, so it stands to reason that many multiples of the reported numbers are on Chicago’s voter rolls.

What about other places? Especially now we know that Arizona is looking the other way?

This is not a problem unique to Chicago. PILF reported that Maricopa County, Arizona, has had 222 foreign nationals on voter rolls; Fairfax County, Virginia, 1,334; San Diego County 264; and there were 1,290 more in 10 other counties where records were examined. In Virginia overall, 5,556 noncitizens were removed from voter rolls, but only after 7,474 votes were cast illegally. These numbers are only a sampling, as PILF must do painstaking public information requests jurisdiction by jurisdiction — and its reports cover only the instances where the erroneous registrations and votes eventually, mercifully, were discovered and fixed by state officials.

We need serious reform, up and down the stack.

<<sano says 'orange rapist', because trump, the leader of the right, is a rapist.>>

My, my, oh my... November, 2024, is INDEED going to an interesting time, isn't it?

I'd like to say that "these are times that try men's souls", but someone already used that one...

Note Border Wall is defined as a set all the security measures necessary to prevent 99% of illegal crossing.

Sorry, you don't get to redefine it at whim, and especially if you don't link to a reputable cite. - Lapsody

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

Sure I do for sake of brevity on this board.< /i>

I hereby proclaim your concept as the Maltese Border. Done.

<<Dope1 We need serious reform, up and down the stack.>>

I have a wild-arse idea... why can't existing law simply be ENFORCED???

I know that there are some who might think that's an idea too far out there, but it has worked before... I even remember that... I think...

<<Dope1 We need serious reform, up and down the stack.>>

I have a wild-arse idea... why can't existing law simply be ENFORCED???

Dope's right this whole thing needs serious reform.

The scary thing is the sheer numbers of God knows who running over the border.
I don’t get the blasé attitude that so many have over this. Did the world just not witness in October what happens when you have enemies that hate you enough to do what Hamas did?

Are these folks arrogant enough or naive enough to think such a thing couldn’t happen here?

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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