Post New

...and the cynical GOP.

Now the Republicans in Congress are demanding that Biden use executive powers to close the border, something they know he can't do.

But they want immigration to be an issue for Trump to campaign on, so they refused to pass a bill that was the best hope for reform.

It is so deeply cynical.

Go back to arguing to keep immigrants out of your white America.

Go back to arguing for America being World Cop.

Want a Bush-Cheney 2004 sign?

Oh wait, Bush was to the Left of you racist Liberals on immigration - bad idea.

...and the cynical GOP.

Now the Republicans in Congress are demanding that Biden use executive powers to close the border, something they know he can't do.

--------------

I am not sure the Republicans do know that. I think we on this board, through lots and lots of discussion and debate down at the minutiae layers, understand this issue far better than the average voter, the press, and most members of congress.

Now, every time I hear the term "here illegally" I cringe a little bit, knowing about what the underlying laws actually require. We even traced the issue back to its roots in the Geneva convention where the treatment of refugees is specified. That 70 year old doctrine has served us well but it no longer accounts for today's reality that massive numbers of immigrants can and do game the system. It needs revision.

ges Now the Republicans in Congress are demanding that Biden use executive powers to close the border, something they know he can't do.

But they want immigration to be an issue for Trump to campaign on, so they refused to pass a bill that was the best hope for reform.

That's the state of affairs. So we need to run on the great economy we're in, Biden's accomplishments, and I suspect there's an element of Ukraine that will come up. Will Putin become Comey and launch an offensive just before the election? Our October surprise.

Senator Tommy Tuberville watched the Putin interview and proclaimed Putin wants peace and it's the DC folk that don't want it. The Republicans have become a clear and present danger to our democracy - 40% of them would welcome departing from this democracy.

It's too bad Merkel isn't still in office in Germany. If Trump is elected, the free world would still have a leader.

"Now the Republicans in Congress are demanding that Biden use executive powers to close the border, something they know he can't do."

But it is what Trump would do. What would stop him?

I think we on this board, through lots and lots of discussion and debate down at the minutiae layers, understand this issue far better than the average voter, the press, and most members of congress.

Definitely more than the average voter. I would hope not better than most in Congress. They have aids and advisers who should be informed, and keep them informed. And I would hope any journalist writing on the subject would have at least a basic knowledge before sitting at his/her keyboard.

It needs revision.

The Geneva Convention could be revisited, though I think it was a good statement on how the people of the world should be treated. Our own laws need an overhaul. And while a bipartisan deal was struck (that the Border Patrol union, the conservative Wall Street Journal, and many senators on both sides said was a "good start"), it was killed for politics. I think a congressman from Texas (Nehls) summed it up best when he said he wasn't going to allow it to be resolved while a Democrat was in the White House. He (and others) view it as "helping a Democrat" instead of helping the country.

But it is what Trump would do. What would stop him?

A court issued stay.

Trump already tried it. In fact, Biden took a slightly different approach and also tried it. The courts shot both down.

If Trump were in office, he'd make a big deal about signing an executive order, and then the courts would stop him, and then he'd complain about "the deep state" and "very bad judges". Rinse and repeat. That was most of his first four years in a nutshell.

t no longer accounts for today's reality that massive numbers of immigrants can and do game the system. It needs revision.

It needs revision, but I don't think massive numbers of immigrants are gaming the system. Most are coming here and taking their best shot for a better life. I don't call that gaming the system. To me, someone claiming asylum who presents his best case and is turned down is not gaming the system. To me a hypothetical of gaming the system would be to claim being a part of a group in your area that are being imprisoned and killed, and you've never been a part of that group, don't have any real credible fear, but it's impossible to tell you weren't part of that group.

One thing I did note was that the new criteria in the defunct bill allowed us to turn away someone if there was violence in their country, but they could move to a non-violent part of their country and came here instead.

I don't think someone taking a shot at a better life is "gaming the system". I do grant some do probably game the system though.

That 70 year old doctrine has served us well but it no longer accounts for today's reality that massive numbers of immigrants can and do game the system.

I'm not sure that's an accurate description of today's reality.

Certainly the number of people claiming asylum has increased dramatically. But there's no way of knowing whether that's because people are "gaming" the system to any great degree (which I assume you mean making a bad faith assertion of asylum just to remain in country). The numbers can go up if large number of people start claiming asylum in bad faith....or if you have more of the same mix of people applying. It's way too soon to see whether a greater proportion of people are losing their asylum cases, which would indicate an increase in the number of specious claims - it will be years before recently-filed claims reach final decision. But the fact that asylum applications have spiked not just in the U.S., but also in other countries like Mexico and Costa Rica, suggests that the increase is due to worsening conditions in the Central Triangle, Venezuela, and Nicaragua - not more people "gaming the system."

Remember, a very large number of asylum applications (half a million last year) are affirmative requests, not defensive requests. A defensive request gets submitted as a way of stopping a removal/deportation process at the border, both between and at ports of entry. If someone is physically present in the country but is subject to being removed because they lack a visa or have crossed outside of a POE, they file a defensive request. Affirmative requests are filed outside of that scenario - someone who isn't trying to avoid being removed because they're here without permission, but instead is making a request to stay for good.

Remember, a very large number of asylum applications (half a million last year) are affirmative requests, not defensive requests. A defensive request gets submitted as a way of stopping a removal/deportation process at the border, both between and at ports of entry. If someone is physically present in the country but is subject to being removed because they lack a visa or have crossed outside of a POE, they file a defensive request. Affirmative requests are filed outside of that scenario - someone who isn't trying to avoid being removed because they're here without permission, but instead is making a request to stay for good.

But the above is the very definition of gaming the system.
If I'm a coyote, and I make a lot of money on getting migrants to and over the border, then why wouldn't I have a nice packet of what to say the US Border Patrol if me and my party get caught?

This isn't a new thing as it turns out:
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-08...

GUACATAN, Guatemala — These are lean times for Hugo and others in his time-honored profession.
He hasn’t worked regularly in weeks and is back in college studying accounting, which he took up after ditching criminal science as unsuitable considering his full-time gig.

“It’s just too hard to do the job right now,” said Hugo, who makes his living as a people smuggler, or coyote, guiding migrants on the often-perilous journey from Guatemala through Mexico to the U.S. border.

A crackdown by Mexican authorities — acting at the insistence of President Trump — has dramatically reduced the flow of Central American migrants this summer.

Oh, sorry. Had to throw that in there. :)

Back to the point I was making:

But most colleagues, Hugo said, understand that they are in a competitive business, and that customer service is paramount.

Though some coyotes advertise on local radio or social media, boasting that they can facilitate the “American dream,” migrants typically choose smugglers whom they have used before or who have been recommended by friends or relatives.

“This is a business based on trust,” Hugo said. “People could denounce us, they could burn us. But they don’t.”

Many of these guys are businessmen, after all. Hugo here doesn't really want to make a living as an accountant, after all.

With their approval, Hugo checks his charges into hotels catering to the trade.

At that point, his journey north is over. Mexican coyotes deposit migrants at the Rio Grande and instruct them to give themselves up to U.S. Border Patrol agents to claim asylum.

They're gaming the system and have for years.

But the above is the very definition of gaming the system.
If I'm a coyote, and I make a lot of money on getting migrants to and over the border, then why wouldn't I have a nice packet of what to say the US Border Patrol if me and my party get caught?

That's not "gaming the system," unless the stuff in the nice packet is false. The purpose of asylum is to allow people who face the likelihood of persecution in their home countries to remain in safety. If a coyote tells people who are fleeing persecution in their home countries that they should tell the border patrol that they're fleeing persecution in their home countries, that's not gaming the system. The purpose of the system is to consider bona fide requests for asylum.

That's not "gaming the system," unless the stuff in the nice packet is false. The purpose of asylum is to allow people who face the likelihood of persecution in their home countries to remain in safety. If a coyote tells people who are fleeing persecution in their home countries that they should tell the border patrol that they're fleeing persecution in their home countries, that's not gaming the system. The purpose of the system is to consider bona fide requests for asylum.

Is every Guatemalan on some government hit list? No.
Most people at the border are here looking for economic opportunity.

Senator Tommy Tuberville watched the Putin interview and proclaimed Putin wants peace and it's the DC folk that don't want it.

Tuberville has previously shown himself to be an idiot. This fits right in with that view. Putin has made it very plain that he wants all of Ukraine and more. He wants to reestablish the old Soviet Union or as much of it as he can possibly grab.

"Now the Republicans in Congress are demanding that Biden use executive powers to close the border, something they know he can't do."

But it is what Trump would do. What would stop him?

albaby has addressed this many times. Trump tried. He used Title 42 and Biden continued that policy until the courts said he couldn't.

You tell me how this would work and 1) be legal and 2) not cause massive economic disruption.

Is every Guatemalan on some government hit list? No.
Most people at the border are here looking for economic opportunity.

Is every Guatemalan facing the arduous and dangerous crossing to America? No.

Many people at the border are legitimately seeking asylum, and too high a percentage of them obtain asylum - despite being poor and mostly unrepresented by counsel and unfamiliar with the American legal system - that it is highly unlikely that "most" of the ones who request asylum are here only looking for economic opportunity.

The issues with the border arise, in part, because we are acting as though circumstances haven't changed from the 1980's - when most people at the border were attempting to cross undetected to pursue economic opportunity. Rather than recognizing that things have changed, and we have to deal with a border characterized by large numbers of people who are fleeing persecution in their home countries.

If you keep closing your eyes to how the situation has changed, you're not going to be able to solve the border problems. Whether you prefer to solve them by improving the asylum processing system or by abrogating our treaty commitments for the humane processing of refugees, you can't solve those problems by pretending that we're still back in an era where most border crossers are adult male Mexicans working for work, rather than Central Triangle families looking to flee their home countries.

Is every Guatemalan facing the arduous and dangerous crossing to America? No.

So 100% of the ones that do are asylees? I think not, failed hearing or no failed hearing.
I've just shown you: Going back 5 years ago telling the BP you want asylum is a thing.

So 100% of the ones that do are asylees? I think not, failed hearing or no failed hearing.

No group of tens of thousands of people are 100% anything. But if you set your immigration policy on the assumption that most of them are "gaming the system," and that's not true, it doesn't matter that there might be a small number of folks who are in fact trying to game the system. If the overwhelming majority of these folks are pursuing good faith asylum claims, then an immigration policy that shuts its eyes to that fact is going to fail.

Which is why we have a border crisis. We have an immigration system that's set up assuming that most of the folks coming are here for purely economic reasons and cannot assert a good faith claim for asylum....and it's breaking, because there are too many people who have good faith claims for asylum and we haven't adjusted to that fact.

And while a bipartisan deal was struck (that the Border Patrol union, the conservative Wall Street Journal, and many senators on both sides said was a "good start"), it was killed for politics. I think a congressman from Texas (Nehls) summed it up best when he said he wasn't going to allow it to be resolved while a Democrat was in the White House. He (and others) view it as "helping a Democrat" instead of helping the country. - 1pg

------------------

Struck is too strong a word, better is "was proposed".

And that is what really bugs me, there was no discussion, no debate on the merits and effects of the various components, it was like we tried once so now on to Ukraine which is what we really wanted in the first place. That is pretty obvious to me.

The border security issue deserves to be debated on the floor where voters can watch and politicians can go on record where they stand. The American people are clearly demanding about border security and should not be brushed aside so easily.

My suggestion to the house when the senate clean bill comes over is to staple HR2 to it and send it back to the senate as an amendment. And that doesn't mean take it or leave it but at least debate it, amend it, reach some sort of compromise, just don't ignore it like you did last time.

OK. I can accept "was proposed".

I agree with you. Again, 20 years ago there would have been discussion and debate. It may or may not have passed, but there would have been spirited discussion. But Trump said "it's a bad bill" without even knowing anything about it, and all discussion is shut down.

Normally, the Senate bill would go to the House, they would fight about it, "mark it up", and send it back to the Senate for further debate. None of that happened this time. Because one man, who holds no office, didn't want it resolved so he can have a campaign issue. One man shut down all debate before it even saw the light of day.

I still would have thought it foolish for immigration hawks to let this pass by, but it would be easier to take if there had been the usual debates and political wrangling beforehand. Instead, the bill was summarily executed without a trial.

And that is what really bugs me, there was no discussion, no debate on the merits and effects of the various components, it was like we tried once so now on to Ukraine which is what we really wanted in the first place.

I think that misreads the situation. The reason there was no discussion, no debate, is because both Trump and Johnson signaled very clearly that no possible Senate bill would be acceptable to them. So why would any Republicans continue to work on it? Lankford had his head taken off (metaphorically) for negotiating the most stringent potential passing bill we've seen in two generations. Johnson's "the bill is DOA," before the text came out rather than, "we will fight to improve the problems with the bill," is a clear statement that no movement off the HR 2 messaging provisions would move forward. Which is why McConnell and Lankford gave up.

My suggestion to the house when the senate clean bill comes over is to staple HR2 to it and send it back to the senate as an amendment. And that doesn't mean take it or leave it but at least debate it, amend it, reach some sort of compromise, just don't ignore it like you did last time.

They don't have the votes to do that. Every Democrat would vote against it, and there are going to be at least a few Republicans who want to vote against Ukraine aid regardless of whether HR 2 is attached to it or not. Plus, it's unlikely that the Freedom Caucus hardliners want this to end up in conference committee, where a deal might get struck, rather than killed outright.

I don't think someone taking a shot at a better life is "gaming the system". I do grant some do probably game the system though. - Lapsody

---------------

I am fine with the true asylum seeker facing oppression and death at home, help as many of them as you can. Our protection could reach more of them if we didn't have to sieve through so many non qualifiers to find them.

But it sounds like you are supportive of as many economic migrants as want to, have a right to do so, taking their shot as you call it. Are there no limits on how many or at what rate we must accept them?

Affirmative requests are filed outside of that scenario - someone who isn't trying to avoid being removed because they're here without permission, but instead is making a request to stay for good. - albaby

---------------

As I recall your statistic, 40% of asylum applicants are approved at their hearing years hence. That also means that six out ten are not facing the kind of persecution necessary to qualify as a genuine asylee. It is this 60% I say are attempting to game the system by claiming a status they are not eligible for.

As I recall your statistic, 40% of asylum applicants are approved at their hearing years hence. That also means that six out ten are not facing the kind of persecution necessary to qualify as a genuine asylee. It is this 60% I say are attempting to game the system by claiming a status they are not eligible for.

There is a difference between losing your hearing and gaming the system.

For example, not every plaintiff that loses their lawsuit was bringing a frivolous case. Sometimes you can have a very strong case and still lose. Sometimes you can have a moderately good case, but still know going in that there's a non-trivial chance that the defendant will prevail. And sometimes you might think you only have a modest chance at winning - but it's not gaming the courts to want to put a colorable (if not the strongest) case in front of a judge or jury.

If someone comes in with a case that has a 40/60 chance of winning in court, then they absolutely have every right and merit to bring that case - and it's not gaming the system for them to do it, even though there's a decent chance they'll lose. And that collective 40/60 chance of success comes (again) from a group of people who are mostly poor, mostly unrepresented by counsel, mostly don't have access to any kind of discovery or documentation from their home country, mostly not speaking the native language, and mostly not having any familiarity with our legal system.

Yeah, on the whole they're clearly not "gaming the system." On the whole, they're a group of people who have legitimate (if not always successful) claims for asylum. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose - but this is not a group that is on the whole making these claims up.

Yeah, on the whole they're clearly not "gaming the system."

Coyotes tell them what to say when they walk over the border. Come on.

Coyotes tell them what to say when they walk over the border. Come on.

Of course - because people who are seeking asylum in the U.S. aren't necessarily going to know how the asylum process works. The coyotes - or the immigration lawyers or their friends or their family or anyone who's trying to help them - will tell them what information they have to provide in order to start the asylum process, get through the interviews and hearings, and hopefully obtain asylum. I mean, that's pretty basic stuff. That doesn't mean they're gaming the system.

Of course - because people who are seeking asylum in the U.S. aren't necessarily going to know how the asylum process works.

And the coyotes do? Come on.
Their job is to move as many people over the border as possible; they're going to do and say anything to make that happen.

And the coyotes do? Come on.
Their job is to move as many people over the border as possible; they're going to do and say anything to make that happen.

So what? They don't need to get them to lie about anything to make that happen. Again, the coyote's job stops at the border. Once the people cross (or are taken across), the coyote's done with them. They don't care whether those folks get to stay in the country.

They'll tell them what they should do when they cross ("Find the CPB and tell them you want to apply for asylum") so that these folks aren't just sitting there. But they're not creating some fictional "legend" for them to memorize for their hours-long credible fear interview. These guys do transport, not immigration services.

You don't just get to stay in the country if you say the right three or four phrases when being picked up. You're going to get interviewed about where you're from, what happened to you there, why you left, and what would happen if you went back. So no coyote is going to be writing them a script. At most, they'll be giving them the basic advice - talk about what you were afraid of back home, anyone in your family that was hurt or imprisoned or killed because of who they were, any threats you received, etc.

I am fine with the true asylum seeker facing oppression and death at home, help as many of them as you can. Our protection could reach more of them if we didn't have to sieve through so many non qualifiers to find them.

But it sounds like you are supportive of as many economic migrants as want to, have a right to do so, taking their shot as you call it. Are there no limits on how many or at what rate we must accept them?

NO, Mike, as I've stated before we can't take everyone. Who knows what these people have been told or what their understanding is when they start the journey North? Do I think they actually know the requirements to get an approved asylum grant at that last and final hearing?

It's telling to me that only 1/3 get turned away at the initial screening interview, and that 40% of those who pass the interview are finally accepted. That means 26% of those that request to stay for asylum actually have a worthwhile claim. But what about the 74% that trecked to the border and ultimately were turned away? Were they evil? Is it possible some of those cases weren't just quite good enough, but they were in danger or persecuted? I'm willing to think that 10-15% were frauds, but that leaves 85-90% who weren't good enough, had a poor misunderstanding of the requirements, and some people who took a shot at improving their lives and lost. Are they bad people for doing that? No.

I actually think we do take some economic migrants but not under an asylum application.

You can read a couple of migrant stories here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/business/darien...

P.S. I've been to the Darien - those who trek through that deserve to be considered.

..Yeah, on the whole they're clearly not "gaming the system."<<

Coyotes tell them what to say when they walk over the border. Come on. - Dope

==================

I think the cartels would also be telling how welcoming the US is right now and they will make sure there will be no problem for them too if they want to buy a ticket. And to some degree the cartels are believable to a peasant whose cousin went last summer is now living in a $400 a night hotel room and being given a $1,000 prepaid visa card each month. Our country has lost its mind.

That doesn't mean they're gaming the system.

It seems to me it is gaming when they claim they are in mortal danger when in fact they are not.

It seems to me it is gaming when they claim they are in mortal danger when in fact they are not.

They've been expanding the definition of what "danger" means. It now includes domestic violence and gang activity. They're toying with adding climate change.

The executive branch can and has put its thumb on the scale.

You don't just get to stay in the country if you say the right three or four phrases when being picked up. You're going to get interviewed about where you're from, what happened to you there, why you left, and what would happen if you went back.

---------------

Yet somehow six out of ten do say the right thing with enough conviction to gain entry for at least a few years, a reward in itself.

P.S. I've been to the Darien - those who trek through that deserve to be considered. - Lapsody

---------------

Yikes, I have seen videos out of the Darien gap, definitely a dangerous and foreboding place.

I take it you were kidnapped and held there since no one in their right mind would go there as a tourist.

"At that point, his journey north is over. Mexican coyotes deposit migrants at the Rio Grande and instruct them to give themselves up to U.S. Border Patrol agents to claim asylum." - LA Times

"They're gaming the system and have for years." - Dope1

So you think that people coming to the U.S. to seek asylum who then somehow come to the U.S. and seek asylum are somehow gaming the system?

You don't understand what it means to claim asylum and what it takes to actually get asylum do you?

Reading what you are arguing I wonder if you think that all it takes to get entrance into the U.S. is that a foreigner just needs to show up at the U.S. border, ask for asylum, and then they will automatically be given a phone and a court date 8 years in the future.

It doesn't really work that way, you can't just tell some border agent some prewritten script without any of it being true and automatically get into the country. I cannot believe you would actually think that, but given some of the poor sources of information you use, I wouldn't be surprised at what you strange thing they convinced you to think. After all, you have repeatedly shown you don't understand the difference between encounters and actual people allowed into the country. You think they are the same.

They've been expanding the definition of what "danger" means. It now includes domestic violence and gang activity. They're toying with adding climate change.

Cite please.

The Navy went out to the Darien with some Doctors. My short hike there was sweltering, bug infested - I was miserable. I remember the misery.

Yet somehow six out of ten do say the right thing with enough conviction to gain entry for at least a few years, a reward in itself.

Yes, because they have a plausible basis for claiming persecution in their homelands. Again, you can have a decent case for yourself, and still lose - especially if you're poor, unrepresented by counsel, don't have access to documents and witnesses, are unfamiliar with the system, and don't speak the language.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.