If I claim I am an asylum seeker and I am not, how would you know? Who determines that…them? Why is it that we should spend all of this money, provide accommodations, food and medical attention prior to this being determined in a court of law? If it’s determined they aren’t asylum seekers, how is it that “we” are supposed to recover this money that “we” do not have? We are over 30 trillion in debt. We’re broke, interest rates are rising and seriously…can we afford SS, medicare, food stamps and the military without this potentially, fraudulent expense? Why is it that “we” are supposed to put the cart, before the horse IMO?
1 Like
So, they are not illegal immigrants, but asylum seekers. I get that probably some of them or even a lot of them might not qualify, but what they are doing, surrendering to the Border Patrol, is not illegal. You can debate whether this administration is not managing the situation well, that is fine, but the fact is this is not an illegal immigrant problem but an asylum one.
If folks seeking asylum is a problem why not…
- Make it so they get processed faster. (More courts, judges, agents, etc.)
- Make it so they get work permits faster so they don’t sponge off us while they are being processed. We have a lot of labor needs in this country and they’re going to work, just under the table if we won’t give them permits to work. That means they don’t pay taxes.
- Make it so they can apply from their home country easier before they leave their country. Biden has been trying to do this and the GOP and Judges are shooting it down.
I am still of the opinion folks like the mess we are in because the GOP gets to criticize Biden just like they criticized Obama (worst ever! Caravans!) just in time for elections while ensuring a large population is forced to work under the table for less money and no protections.
We should reinforce the border, for sure, but we also need to use technology for portions of the border where a wall doesn’t make a lick of sense. And we need to create a more robust worker visa system so that migrants can come in, make some money, and then go back home until the following year. As far as Venezuelans go, I don’t get why they are heading here, they’re not a border country.
disagree, they are supposed to report to a legal port of entry to claim asylum. Wading across the river is illegal immigration wether or not they turn themselves in and claim asylum after. It would stop or slow quickly if they just immediately deported them back across the border and allowed zero tolerance. Anyone caught entering illegally would then not be eligible for asylum. Once the word got out people would learn to go to a port of entry. Then the BP personel could be used for intradiction instead of babysitting.
7 Likes
There are no asylum issues in any originating countries in Central or South America.
6 Likes
An “asylum seeker” is determined in a court of law and is done so in a legal manner. Crossing the border illegally, automatically determines that you are an illegal alien and not an asylum seeker. Now why is it, when we don’t have the money, taxpayers who haven’t even been born yet, are expected by your mindset, to foot this bill? How about all of those that want this, pay a special “asylum tax”? Then all of those that are promoting this law breaking activity, are then putting their money where their mouth is? Now that’s fair…isn’t it.
Remember the basis for our Revolution was taxation without representation. You are doing the exact same thing as the British back then but to unborn babies of our future.
2 Likes
For whatever reason libs seem to toss out their brains when it comes to questioning the possibility that anyone would make a false asylum claim. Like you have said, it’s not a secret that there’s no asylum conditions on these countries:
2 Likes
If over 90% of them don’t have LEGALLY valid asylum claims (as even other libs on the forum admitted) then it is NOT an asylum problem.
5 Likes
If they are claiming asylum, they aren’t illegal aliens. It is as simple as that. Now, perhaps their claims are meritless. No one is arguing against that. We should have a process in place to handle this and we currently don’t. We don’t have enough Judges and Courts to process all of these claims and the GOP keeps fighting against doing so, they just keep talking about a wall that cannot be completed because it’s not feasible to do so. Where you can finish the wall, do it. But hundreds of miles along the border cannot be fenced in, it is on private land and the ranchers there depend on the Rio Grande for their water source. We can use satellite technology and motion sensors there instead, and we should.
In the meantime, if we have these folks here waiting for the courts to decide their claims, let’s put them to work because they want to work. Let’s give them permits, let them pay taxes and support themselves instead of us supporting them. I just don’t see the logic in not doing so.
For a reason.
If they don’t cross the border legally, they are illegal aliens and it’s as simple as that.
1 Like
Then tough ■■■■ . They can make their claim legally and then wait their turn just like every other LEGAL IMMIGRANT but outside of the country.
1 Like
That is not necessarily true and you know it.
You know what is hypocritical here, how many times do those on the Left cry that we can’t enforce current immigration law because we don’t have the resources. Do you ever hear anyone on the Left cry that we need to hire more ICE agents to find and deport people here illegally???
Regarding the judges and courts, well then how about the same argument, we simply don’t have the resources! It’s not the US taxpayers responsibility to provide the necessary resources to hear and adjudicate tens of millions of asylum claims, especially since we know the overwhelming majority are not within the legal definition of asylum law. Furthermore, it is a false notion that a sovereign nation has no choice but to take in ANYONE who shows up at their border just because they utter a few magic words:
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.
Exactly! The reason is that the legal process is not designed to handle millions and millions of economic migrants coming from all over the world pretending to be people seeking asylum.
1 Like
At this point it simply becomes a game of semantics as there’s no stopping anyone from making false claims, especially when they are being coached what to say and when the Biden Administration is literally complicit is this game. Maybe Joe and Hunter are getting a kickback from the human smugglers who are literally making billions of dollars off of this nonsense.
2 Likes
We already have numerous legal pathways for people to come here to work:
Interestingly we never hear LAWMAKERS talking about these legal pathways that are already on the books. 
2 Likes
you can apply for refugee status in your home country.
if you come to a port of entry than you can apply for asylum.
Allan
Isn’t that how most of our ancestors got here?
Don’t know, don’t care. The idea that our immigration policies today should mirror immigration policies in the past is utter nonsense. The immigration policies that we have today should be centered around the economic realities and economic challenges in the US TODAY, along with what best benefits the American people. Needs/Merit based immigration is what makes sense, not flooding the nation with millions and millions of impoverished, uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking, largely unemployable people with their share of problems.
1 Like
That’s your opinion. To me, we have 9.5 million open jobs at the moment and only 6.5 million unemployed folks to fill them. I see signs all the time looking for workers. And that is retail, restaurant work, etc. For trades? I bet it’s tough finding folks willing to work hard. Again, if they are already here applying for asylum, why not let them work? We have the jobs and they are already working under the table, we just aren’t getting taxes off of them. They’re not sitting around doing nothing, they came here to make bank.
1 Like
