Easy fix. Take congress about 5 minutes and a vote. The asylum excuse is abuse. They’re ruining it for people who might actually need it. And you’re buying it.
2 Likes
She’s not.
I did. They claim they will deport. They just drew the line.
What did I miss?
Are you suggesting that asylum should be removed? If not, what do you change about the process?
Apparently you missed the part where they shouldn’t go after all illegals because some of them have been “contributing members” of our society.
This is not an exception written into the law.
We do not have a court system to determine who has been a contributing illegal member of our society. They need to go home and be a contributing member of their own country"s society.
1 Like
“Asylum conditions do not exist in any country in North, Central or South America. To be reviewed annually.”
They drew the line. You have to draw it somewhere.
Where is your line?
With the law passed by Congress.
1 Like
At the Rio Grande
Would you deport every illegal going back 50 years?
The duty of our president and our representatives is to put the welfare and the sovereignty of their nation and its people ABOVE everything else, including asylum:
i. A state’s right to offer asylum is well known in international law. It follows from the principle that each sovereign state is considered to have exclusive control over its territory and, consequently, over persons present in its territory. One of the implications of this widely accepted rule is that each sovereign state has the right to grant or deny asylum to individuals within its borders. In international law, therefore, the right of asylum has traditionally been seen as the right of a state, rather than the right of an individual.
Asylum was NEVER intended to be a magnet for the entire impoverished world to come to America and bypass normal system of immigration, which is exactly what is happening at the border now. If we actually had a president who gave two ■■■■■ about the country, he could shut this ■■■■■■■■ down immediately. Tell the ■■■■■■■ world that we are well past our capacity to take in anymore people and declare the border is closed to everyone seeking asylum. Tell them they are required to seek asylum in Mexico or any of the dozens of countries they passed through to come to our border.
EVERY NATION HAS EVERY RIGHT TO PUT ITS SOVEREIGNTY ABOVE ASYLUM!
Not even Trump did this.
This is wishful thinking.
If I decided I wanted to move to Britain or France and just packed up and surreptitiously moved there without even a VISA, then if I were later caught, no matter after how many years, and deported, you know who I would blame?
Myself.
Ex post facto law.
Not a question worthy of a UCLA graduate.
So yes?
It was illegal 50 years ago… so not ex post facto.
The Liberal Left and the Democrat Party have intentionally chosen to ignore this part.
The decision whether or not someone should be allowed to enter this country is a decision to be made by the United States of America, not by illegal migrants who gave the Mexican drug cartels a bunch of money to come to our border.
This needs to be repeated over and over again.
Personally I would send the military to the border, declare the cartels to be the terrorists they are, place physical barriers whereever needed while finishing the wall, and would instruct the folks patroling the border to turn every single person around…
If the Mexican government learns that they are going to own all those people they might well decide to close their borders as well.
2 Likes
Your argument is that there’s nothing we can do, which is ■■■■■■■■■ My contention is that we have every right to do so. Regarding Trump, what he did wasn’t as draconian, but the situation then was nowhere near what it is now, nonetheless it was very effective:
The agreements the Trump Administration made with other countries was very effective and should be implemented again; from the link I just posted:
On top of this, the administration forged the so-called safe-third-country agreements with Northern Triangle countries.
The agreements made it possible to divert asylum-seekers to Central American countries other than their own, where they could apply for protection.
The legal basis for the program was straightforward. Under federal law, an alien showing up at the U.S. may apply for asylum unless, pursuant to a safe-third-country agreement with the U.S., he or she can be removed to a country “in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.”
It’s terrible if someone genuinely fears for his or her life, but the official familiar with the issue says, “There is nothing in United States law that mandates that in a situation like that, that a person is entitled to resettle in the United States, as opposed to resettling in Mexico or Guatemala or El Salvador or Honduras or any number of other countries.”
Mark Morgan calls the way asylum-seeking has worked “forum shopping.” Instead of seeking asylum in the first country they traveled through, which is the standard internationally, migrants waited to make their claim in the United States, because, by and large, they weren’t escaping persecution, but seeking better economic prospects.
With the agreements with the Northern Triangle countries, the administration could, per Morgan, “one, ensure a pathway for those who had legitimate claims could actually seek relief and get assistance as fast as possible. And second, we shut down forum shopping.”
Again, Trump’s willingness to play hardball made diplomatic progress possible. “His willingness to use negative tactics,” Ken Cuccinelli says, “like pulling foreign aid money from the Northern Triangle countries, was clearly critical in getting them to take seriously the need to engage in cooperative efforts with us. But they did.”
The former senior administration official puts it this way: “Sitting down with the senior government leaders of Guatemala and telling them, ‘We’d like you to sign an agreement that will obviously be immediately leaked into your home press and that states that you’re going to take illegal immigrants from other countries that arrive in our country’ — do you have any idea how hard it is to get somebody to agree to that?”
Morgan calls the result “unprecedented agreement, unprecedented cooperation” with the Northern Triangle countries. It involved not just a willingness to allow asylum-seekers to apply in their countries, but information-sharing with the U.S. and other forms of cooperation.
The agreement with Guatemala was the first to get underway, while the onset of the pandemic kept the others from taking effect. The deal didn’t result in migrants getting sent in large numbers to Guatemala, but it did smoke out how serious migrants were about escaping alleged persecution in their home countries.
As the senior administration official explains, if a migrant from, say, Honduras said he had a credible fear of returning home, it would be explained that he could be sent immediately to Guatemala to make his asylum claim. At which point, the migrant would almost always think better of it and say he preferred simply to go back home to Honduras. (Usually, by the way, it is considered best practice to resettle an asylee in a country that is close to, and culturally similar to, his home country.)
This dynamic meant the agreements could have an outsized deterrent effect with little cost to the Northern Triangle countries. The former senior administration official says the agreements were “more powerful, in terms of achieving a secure border, than every piece of border-security legislation that’s been introduced in the last 10 years.”
1 Like
