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.
Not sure I've ever heard ANYONE argue for "an unlimited influx of what amounts to refugees over the US border," but since everyone likes these sorts of straw man arguments, I suppose "anything goes" as usual here. Same as the prior comments suggesting that any way other than Trump's way is to care nothing of border security. ...
There may well be some progressive positions that could lead to that as an unintended result. Some who do not want open borders but still examine this from an humanitarian perspective struggle with the numerical implications. Central America is unstable. Per the earlier comments, the progressive point-of-view has not been well-developed in these threads.
There are numerical and legal issues. The President has the authority to restrict the number of refugees admitted to the United States each year. No such limitation applies to those seeking asylum. His current attempts to restrict asylum-seekers to date have either been extra-legal (skirting the plain meaning of both US laws and international accords) OR already overturned by Courts ruling that he cannot circumvent Congress.
In theory, there could be an unlimited influx, which per various expressions on these threads few (or none) would be comfortable with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
... These are the same sort of "blind spots" that keep Trump from doing what would actually help America make progress with our border security and immigration policies, but of course when you think in terms of these sorts of straw man arguments (to misrepresent the real arguments), and when you think in terms of "my way or the highway," America ends up right where it is today. Stuck on the side of the road...
Can't wait to see how Trump otherwise describes our state of the Union. No doubt this too will be more than most thinking informed people can swallow.
His actions to date (the bold, including the wall) I find counter-productive.
There is a bipartesan committee doing the negotiating. From what I understand, neither Trump nor Pelosi are part of this group.
Yes, and imagine how much fun it must be to be negotiating on Trump's behalf (for the GOP) knowing Trump can and will pull the rug right out from under you if not exactly what Trump wanted in the first place, and imagine how much fun it must be negotiating on behalf of Pelosi/Schumer (for the Democrats) after Trump embarrassed himself with the longest shutdown ever in America, losing support and credibility with every day since!
Why do I suspect Trump and the GOP are at a distinct disadvantage here, even while they know there are countless ways to negotiate a more intelligent approach to border security and immigration reform that does not necessarily include Trump's wall bigger than ever before? Can't blame the Dems for enjoying the moment in any case, while there is really no national security breach of consequence or any compelling case to justify Trump's wall compared to the alternatives.
Might even be said this "threat to our national security" according to Trump is not quite the source of fear and concern that Trump and his followers insist on believing, but queue another round of hearing about all the "bad hombres" before Trump loses his audience again...
There may well be some progressive positions that could lead to that as an unintended result. Some who do not want open borders but still examine this from an humanitarian perspective struggle with the numerical implications. Central America is unstable. Per the earlier comments, the progressive point-of-view has not been well-developed in these threads.
There are numerical and legal issues. The President has the authority to restrict the number of refugees admitted to the United States each year. No such limitation applies to those seeking asylum. His current attempts to restrict asylum-seekers to date have either been extra-legal (skirting the plain meaning of both US laws and international accords) OR already overturned by Courts ruling that he cannot circumvent Congress.
In theory, there could be an unlimited influx, which per various expressions on these threads few (or none) would be comfortable with.
His actions to date (the bold, including the wall) I find counter-productive.
Maybe read a little bit about what this issue of asylum-seekers truly represents, because one thing is restricting the number of refugees applying for asylum status. Quite another actually getting it per today's laws and legal process established before Trump came along...
In FY 2016, the most recent year with available data, 20,455 individuals were granted asylum: 11,729 affirmatively and 8,726 defensively (Figure 1). Total annual asylum grants averaged 23,669 between FY 2007 and FY 2016.
Never said I took pride in it, just stating the fact that I'm not a cheer leader, like was suggested...
With all due respect, I'd say "cheer leader" is a far better description all considered, over say "truth sayer," even given the recognition that Trump is a liar, but fair enough. Correction...
Noting that Trump is a liar is something like noting Trump is the POTUS. Both are obvious sad truths...
Maybe read a little bit about what this issue of asylum-seekers truly represents, because one thing is restricting the number of refugees applying for asylum status. Quite another actually getting it per today's laws and legal process established before Trump came along...
In FY 2016, the most recent year with available data, 20,455 individuals were granted asylum: 11,729 affirmatively and 8,726 defensively (Figure 1). Total annual asylum grants averaged 23,669 between FY 2007 and FY 2016.
I'm about to leave but I'll look through the cite. From what you've written, the numbers refer to granted asylum (immigration court proceeding) not acceptance of asylum applications based on the credibility fear examination (USCIS procedure). Those acceptances rates are relatively high depending on the country-of-origin. The asylee gains entry and eventual work permits. There are not adequate facilities to hold those admitted to the US to prepare their immigration court cases. Those released into the United States may (I believe) apply for work permits after about 6 months.
Sessions has attempted to revise the applicable asylum criteria (the definition of persecution). He's had some success when it comes to the immigration courts that fall under Justice but been overturned when it comes to the USCIS proceedings who fall under other Federal Courts.
This ^^^ situation (with numerous other complications) when applied to countries close to our borders experiencing political instability results in a problem.
Trump's been using arguably extra-legal methods beyond the 1996 immigration act to prevent even applications being made. He's been looking to Mexico for work-arounds but there encountered no functional on-the-ground-solutions. If only for humanitarian reasons, these efforts are not sustainable. My point, however, was largely theoretically - with the distinction made between asylum-seekers and refugees. Per your observation, precision is important. There is no numerical limit on asylum-seekers who can reach US soil. Supreme Court rulings uphold their receipt of due process under the Constitution.
Last edited by EveryLady; 02-05-2019 at 12:27 PM..
Fair enough, but describing other views as "progressive" tends to do the same thing, because people have predetermined biased views about what "progressive" means...
A challenge no matter how you look at it, but sure seems to me that people don't realize just how varied all these views can be. Think about the basic right vs left limitation. Two sides? Two views?
Of course there are countless views all in between that might make a whole lot better sense to people if they were expressed in simple terms, with facts, reason and logic, rather than labeled as "progressive" for example.
Again just pontificating, because I really don't think people can change their ways much, or their thinking. "Just can't change the spots on a dog."
Two observations:
First bold: I had already responded with a post that again used the term "progressive" although it added a qualifier to add context (reference to emphasis on the humanitarian). Further explanation of another statements led to a paragraph. Now we're discussing various facts and interpretations connected to that paragraph.
That is to the positive with no personal complaint. Still, that's not how most folks roll if only due to a lack of time. Politicians count on that ...
Second bold: No, nor their thinking. I may decry politicians who deliberately distort but fault not in the least those who hold to various views even if against what to me appears reasonable. Immigration issues connect to home lives or jobs to degrees that are open to dispute. Still, these are emotional issues. That folks bring that emotion to what they believe even if not factual forms another "reality" of how people process.
More real perhaps in the end than "facts." For example, that many American citizens oppose a path to citizenship for the 11+ million illegals may be reason enough to oppose. The goal to minimize the resulting national divide among current fellow Americans itself has value. (That there is a concurrent need among some to castigate or demonize those non-citizens who seek that better life, I DO find problematic.)
I'm about to leave but (without opening the cite, apologies - but I WILL later) the numbers you cite result from granted asylum (immigration court proceeding) not acceptance of asylum applications based on the credibility fear examination (USCIS procedure). Those acceptances rates are relatively high depending on the immigration country-of-origin.
Sessions' has attempted to revise the acceptance criteria (the definition of persecution). He's had some success when it comes to the immigration courts who are under the purview of Justice but been overturned when it comes to the USCIS proceedings who fall under other Federal Courts. There are not adequate facilities to hold those admitted to the US to prepare their immigration court cases. Those released into the United States may (I believe) apply for work permits after about 6 months.
THESE ^^^ are but a sample of the challenges encountered from our current immigration system when faced with political instability and worse in a country that is close to our borders. Other complications.
Trump now is using arguably extra-legal methods beyond the 1996 immigration act to prevent even applications being made. THAT is a problem. He's been looking to Mexico for work-arounds but there encountered no on-the-ground-solutions. And on it continues ...
Regardless ^^^ this should not be distorted to use to inflame for his personal pet project.
EDITED TO ADD - I looked quickly. There are some credible fear figures in there - higher, but it's worth examining future projections based on the current border situation.
I've got to sign off too, but here again the facts really don't matter as much as how we feel about asylum seekers in general...
Not explaining anything here that anyone doesn't really know in their hearts, but it helps to get to the heart of the matter and not pretend like all the rest matters all that much when, quite simply, some Americans could really care less about the plight of an asylum seeker while others care plenty. The reasons people feel one way or the other are varied and born of personal perspective that tends to be largely a function of where we live, how we think, how we were raised and of course..., our personal experience with immigrants and asylum seekers, just for starters.
Here is reading perhaps more worthwhile along these lines, about how we tend to feel differently about who we are as Americans and what our obligations should or should not be along these lines. It is very easy to see and hear all the anti-asylum-seeking opinions and the reasons for them. "America can't help everybody," for example. And then there are opinions like this...
Which is right or wrong, more or less moral, ethical, practical, American?
Simply depends on who you ask, but how we feel as a country in general is what makes the numbers matter. What numbers are too high, at what cost? Is it worth it? Can't answer those questions until we as a country can agree on the goal...
I've got to sign off too, but here again the facts really don't matter as much as how we feel about asylum seekers in general...
Not explaining anything here that anyone doesn't really know in their hearts, but it helps to get to the heart of the matter and not pretend like all the rest matters all that much when, quite simply, some Americans could really care less about the plight of an asylum seeker while others care plenty. The reasons people feel one way or the other are varied and born of personal perspective that tends to be largely a function of where we live, how we think, how we were raised and of course..., our personal experience with immigrants and asylum seekers, just for starters.
Here is reading perhaps more worthwhile along these lines, about how we tend to feel differently about who we are as Americans and what our obligations should or should not be along these lines. It is very easy to see and hear all the anti-asylum-seeking opinions and the reasons for them. "America can't help everybody," for example. And then there are opinions like this...
Which is right or wrong, more or less moral, ethical, practical, American?
Simply depends on who you ask, but how we feel as a country in general is what makes the numbers matter. What numbers are too high, at what cost? Is it worth it? Can't answer those questions until we as a country can agree on the goal...
I edited the above some, for clarity. Now I'm horrified at the time. Any rereading might better demonstrate the point it's a mathematical issue, a theoretical one. Trump to my knowledge has not found a way around the problem that every asylum seeker has a right to make an application. And that - per US law - many are accepted, even though Courts subsequently reject the final application. In the interim, asylum seekers are admitted. (Mexico is not implementing the Return to Mexico program per the original Homeland security announcement.)
That's the short version. Trump uses the images (of the caravan) to defend a wall when that doesn't begin to address the legal complexity.
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.
