Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the fact still remains that apprehending them on US soil yields a far different outcome than preventing them from reaching US soil, especially since most are now surrendering and asking for asylum as you pointed out.
Asylum seekers at POEs are allowed to walk onto US soil. Unless there's a SCOTUS fix of the between-port issue, a wall isn't going to help in Texas. Per Mulvaney, simply crossing the Rio Grande Valley will permit an asylum claim. That they may still be outside any wall is legally irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
If apprehending illegal entrants resulted in those illegals not being released into the country, maybe a wall would not be needed.
You're good on stats (which I appreciate, so much better than the alternative). Not to send you looking ... admittedly I'm not sure about the factors that result in illegals being released into the country. Some seeking asylum, for sure. No doubt some who obtain deportation stays for various reasons. Know of any other categories?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
However, Democrats oppose both barriers to prevent them from reaching US soil and measures that would prevent those apprehended from being released into the country. What possible valid reason do they give for wanting to limit the number of beds for detentions?
They appear to be most upset about ICE targeting long-established immigrants away from the border.
Asylum seekers at POEs are allowed to walk onto US soil. Unless there's a SCOTUS fix of the between-port issue, a wall isn't going to help in Texas. Per Mulvaney, simply crossing the Rio Grande Valley will permit an asylum claim. That they may still be outside any wall is legally irrelevant.
But what is practically relevant, is if they are on some strip of land between the boundary and the wall, there will be no one there to respond to their asylum claim.
As for other factors for release, when ICE released 1000 migrants last Christmas week they cited that detention centers were full and they needed beds for new apprehensions. Also the Flores Agreement limits detention of minors to 20 days max. We have confining and conflicting court rulings. Courts have upheld Flores which prevents minors from being held in facilities with unrelated adults. Yet courts have also ruled we cannot separate minors from parents. Courts have also denied the governments' appeal to modify Flores to permit family detention until cases are heard. The courts have effectively made minors a free admission ticket for any adult walking across the border with them and claiming them as their child.
Not sure what long-established illegals far from the border has to do with number of beds in detention centers along the border. The beds aren't being filled to capacity with those interior illegals because those are subject to expedited removal.
"Border security" means "not permanent" which is what the left wants because they would immediately defund/mismanage the money if they ever had the power to do so. A wall is permanent border security which is a primary reason why the left hates it.
But what is practically relevant, is if they are on some strip of land between the boundary and the wall, there will be no one there to respond to their asylum claim.
It doesn't matter if there's someone there, they have a year to file their asylum petition
These are the influential people supporting We Build The Wall. Steve Bannon isn't listed yet I see. He is interested in using hemp concrete for parts of it. I don't know for sure but I suspect the makers of it are donating it to get publicity. Should attract some environmentalists and Green party folks.
Walls are a deterrent. By themselves, no, they’re no effective at all.
The wall around your house isn’t solely what keeps people from breaking in. They’re there to deter, to delay, to hassle the would be robber. Ultimately it’s a combination of the rule of law, other systems you might have that deter the robber. If I wanted to get into your home bad enough, a wall means nothing.
The same applies to the border. I bet if you had one hundred acres you wouldn’t fence in the whole thing. You’d fence in the important part, and maybe setup cameras to monitor the rest.
This is why these decisions s should be left to professionals. Which included border patrol until relatively recently when their tune on the wall “mysteriously” changed...
Im not sure I would call the border patrol 'professionals'...keep in mind, numerous cities and states have ongoing heroin epidemics...meaning, ALOT of heroin is coming in consistently, and reaching its destination...
Border patrol is either ridiculously ineffective or there is collusion.
So, the most logical thing...whatever border patrol suggests or agrees with...the opposite is probably going to be most effective.
Can't imagine the mental gymnastics needed to compare the wall to the Berlin Wall LMAO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
