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.
Trump built mostly replacement fencing/wall plus another 50 feet. He stole the money to do that from the funds meant to build schools on military bases.
Stopping the pilfering of those funds is not the same as a Dem or anyone else saying they want open borders.
and here we thought you wanted to have an honest debate about the issue.
Reasonable people don't call them "open borders" nor accuse the majority of CD members or Dems of wanting them - though some do ("no human is illegal", "all are welcome").
I don't know the answer to your question in this post.
It seems you have a problem answering when someone asks you for proof of something you say. Maybe you will be more judicious in how often you ask others for proof in other threads.
Why don't you write your Congress critters to ask why so many asylum seekers are being allowed into the country these days. Ask why Congress has not addressed the immigration issue for decades. Hint: it is not just Dems who keep avoiding the issue.
Because that is the policy of the Biden Admin and DHS Secretary Mayorkas. The Republicans do not hold the majority in either house of Congress. They cannot schedule a hearing, they cannot pass any additional laws that would strip Mayorkas of his authority.
There is no law that says "all unaccompanied children will be admitted and placed with a sponsor".
There is no law that says "give as many as possible favorable initial asylum assessments".
There is no law that says "we should admit as many as possible [catch and release] and allow them to add to the backlog of immigration cases so that all get 3+ years living in America before their clearly non-legal claim is determined and they are deported".
There is no law that that says they should be released at all (except asylum claims, of which ~10% of the last 12 months 2MM+ encounters even made a claim).
There has been a policy that single adults not claiming asylum are summarily deported, but that has been stopped.
There is a law that once their immigration claim has been adjudicated, and if ordered deported by a judge, they are to be deported. But the DHS Secretary has even said those people are not to be summarily deported. This is how we have 1.2MM with deportation orders that haven't been deported, and annual ~300K ICE deportations that sank below 80K last year.
There is a law that if you are found to be here illegally, and haven't ever presented to the system, that you can be immediately deported. But the DHS Secretary has said "merely being here illegally shouldn't be grounds for deportation". This interesting philosophy means that even if a gotaway commits a violent crime that's not murder, terrorism, or high-quantity drug dealing, they don't have to be deported. They get to sink back into the shadows.
That should be a good start, if we want to talk about this current Administration, outside the ability of Congress to stop them, has rewarded those who are here illegally.
Open to free trade has nothing to do with immigrants. But I give you points for finding a quote.
I didn't watch you tube. Takes too long to load and I can't stand the ads.
oh lord.
Quote:
During an October 2019 Democratic primary debate in Ohio, Biden claimed that illegal immigrants should “immediately surge to the border” if he got elected as president.
“I would in fact make sure that there is – that we immediately surge to the border all those people who are seeking asylum,” Biden said.
Yes, go ahead and proclaim he said "asylum" and "fleeing oppression". The reality is - he never either clarified those remarks upon becoming POTUS 16 months later nor defined asylum criteria.
Within 2 months of actually taking office, the problem was so bad he said Kamala was gonna handle the border ... though they both have consistently given us the "root cause" BS which is purely economic and not political pariahs. Which is the criteria. Yeah, we got a couple "Do not come" after they'd already started coming with their "Thanks Joe" and "Keep your promise Joe" T-shirts and posters.
But the densest of the dense don't ACTUALLY believe that. Because the RESULTS show the exact opposite.
Manifest destiny can be used by everyone. Welcome to freedom for all, not just white people.
Great job at throwing race into the discussion of the validity of our entry/stay/immigration controls. Who's manifest destiny is this? What does it hope to accomplish that hasn't been done already? Curious minds wanna know!!!
Fun fact, California actually seceded from Mexico before the Mexican-American War because they were dissatisfied with Mexican administration. Force of arms decided the outcomes just like Cortez vs the Aztecs and Spaniards vs Natives throughout most of the Americas, including the US/American Southwest.
How does a wall stop the immigrants requesting asylum?
It doesn't at all. It's not meant to. Anyone is allowed - nay encouraged - to show up to ~40 border checkpoints with enough documents to show they have a valid asylum claim.
Thats not true and not sensical, if you are fleeing from harm, you think the actual law is that you have to come in through points of entry that are 100's of miles apart? How would that make any sense?. I think the confusion for a lot of people is that there are 2 sets of rules governing asylum seekers, we have international conventions that specify a floor for the minimum a country should do, in these rules you have things like "country of first refuge" meaning only mexicans would qualify for asylum, anyone landing or transiting through mexico should apply for asylum at mexico. We also have our asylum laws in which we dont make a country of first refuge distinction, in which we do have avenues for economic hardships, violence, things that are not part of international law.
I am all for changing our asylum laws to meet whatever the majority of our population agrees with, I mean I think we should be in the top percentile of countries taking refugees in but I am not going to bat for that, what I will vote against is being inhumane in order to discourage asylum seekers, I would vote against anything that makes the local authorities police immigration which discourages people from reporting crime and makes them vulnerable.
If you were an actual refugee seeking asylum, would you walk across a desert or cross a river, or walk along a highway and across a bridge?
If you paid someone to get you to the border so you could seek asylum viably, would you naturally expect them to drop you off where it was the easiest to make that claim, or out in the desert where you might die, drown, or cross undetected?
Our border is wide wide open. A well planned orchestrated plot akin to Watergate. Very very impeachment worthy offense and more.
New illegal immigration should completely halt and existing illegals deported. All of them. We are a great nation and will deal with the resultant ramifications the corporatists/elites/globalists/progressives have wrought upon us.
We survived Covid and can survive the aftermath of the end to the manufactured catastrophe of mass illegal immigration.
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.
