Biden administration to allow 25,000 asylum-seekers into US
By: ELLIOT SPAGAT (MSN)
Guess he chose to re-open the flood gates we were discussing...........
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Biden administration to allow 25,000 asylum-seekers into US
SAN DIEGO (AP) — The Biden administration on Friday announced plans for tens of thousands of asylum-seekers waiting in Mexico for their next immigration court hearings to be allowed into the United States while their cases proceed.
The first of an estimated 25,000 asylum-seekers in Mexico with active cases will be allowed in the United States on Feb. 19, authorities said. They plan to start slowly with two border crossings each processing up to 300 people a day and a third crossing taking fewer. Administration officials declined to name them out of fear they may encourage a rush of people to those locations.
The move is a major step toward dismantling one of former President Donald Trump's most consequential policies to deter asylum-seekers from coming to the U.S. About 70,000 asylum-seekers were enrolled in " Remain in Mexico," officially called "Migrant Protection Protocols," since it was introduced in January 2019.
On Biden's first day in office, the Homeland Security Department suspended the policy for new arrivals. Since then, some asylum-seekers picked up at the border have been released in the U.S. with notices to appear in court.
Biden is quickly making good on a campaign promise to end the policy, which the Trump administration said was critical to reversing a surge of asylum-seekers that peaked in 2019. But the policy also exposed people to violence in Mexican border cities and made it extremely difficult for them to find lawyers and communicate with courts about their cases.
"As President Biden has made clear, the U.S. government is committed to rebuilding a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system," said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. "This latest action is another step in our commitment to reform immigration policies that do not align with our nation's values."
Homeland Security said the move "should not be interpreted as an opening for people to migrate irregularly to the United States." Administration officials have said repeatedly that the vast majority of people who cross the border illegally are quickly expelled under a public health order in place since the pandemic struck in March, but releases of some asylum-seeking families in Texas and California has worked against that messaging.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday that she was concerned that limited releases in the U.S. may encourage others to cross illegally because "we don't want people to put themselves in danger at a time where it is not the right time to come, because we have not had time to put in place a humane and moral system and process."
Hearings for people enrolled in "Remain in Mexico" have been suspended since June due to the pandemic. Getting word out on when to report to the border for release in the United States may prove a daunting job.
Homeland Security said it would soon announce a "virtual registration process" available online and by phone for people to learn where and when they should report. It urged asylum-seekers not to report to the border unless instructed.
Asylum-seekers will be tested for COVID-19 before entering the U.S.
The announcement provides no relief to people whose cases were dismissed or denied, though administration officials did not rule out additional measures. Advocates argue that communication problems, including lack of working addresses in Mexico, caused some to miss hearings and lose their cases as a result.
More people are getting stopped crossing the border illegally since Biden took office.
Raul Ortiz, deputy chief of the Border Patrol, said Tuesday that more than 3,000 people had been stopped crossing the border illegally in each of the previous 10 days, compared to a daily average of 2,426 in January.
About 50 to 80 adults and children have been arriving daily since Jan. 27 at Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, which temporarily houses people released by the Border Patrol, said Sister Norma Pimentel, the group's executive director. The charity tests for COVID-19 and sends anyone who tests positive to a hotel for isolation.
Jewish Family Service of San Diego housed 191 asylum-seekers the first 10 days of February after the were released by U.S. authorities, up from 144 in January and 54 in December, said Eitan Peled, the group's border services advocate. They are quarantined in hotels for 10 days.
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft and partners may be compensated if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
At three hundred plus per day, it will only take 30-45 days to clean up their approximately 25,000 cases. What are the go/no-go lines on how many actually show up for their hearing and don't head directly to the shadows? Figures from 2019 show 69% get rejected. You think they are still going to take those odds?
They will quickly disappear into all 48 states, eventually showing up to apply for social services
More people to pick my fruit and veggies and keep the prices down.
There needs to be a big NO VACANCY sign put up
I hope like HELL that hordes of these people know who, especially here, laud this action and a few hundred move into their home towns. Wonder if the tune would change? Damned right it would. Although I am sure if any of those people have just one room they will offer it up the the seekers and feed and house them................./S
They came legally, processed through Ellis Island, and not all were accepted.
and at the time we had a need for immigrants, the place is overfull now and we don't need anymore
That's a poem, not a policy
Long as it gets them what they want and right now that involves replacing voters.
So only immigrants processed through Ellis Island should be accepted? That seems to be what you are claiming. Trouble is that we are addressing asylum seekers, not immigrants.
If that is your interpretation.....................not said nor implied.
Things are not always what they seem.............
Potato PoTAHto
So what? Has nothing to do with this.
Then you better re-read it. [ DELETED ]
Which tells me that you do not understand the difference.
Sorry but you know what they say. "When in Rome......................."
They are both Illegal Aliens until the Asylum request is granted.
Not all asylum seekers qualify. Being poor and unable to find work in your own country is NOT a qualifying reason.
Incorrect.
That would be alleged asylum seekers. Not all are on the up and up by a longshot! See how long you may be welcoming them when your taxes start to go up supporting them all. Biden just want blanket admittance of all instead of proper vetting.
If they request asylum, they are asylum seekers. In this case it is very black and white.
Well, you know the remedy for that, right? You don't like it, you can leave.
Ozzy - you really need to read the LAW again.
And Ozzy, over 80% of those "seekers" are fake.
Learn about the subject before you start criticizing.
Doesn't matter, if they request they are asylum seekers.
Then why don't you post the section of the law you feel I am wrong about.
Really simple answer that doesn't really need to be explained.
Until their Asylum Request is APPROVED - if they cross into the U.S. BEFORE that approval, they are entering the U.S. ILLEGALLY.
What I wrote was true....you're simply not capable of understanding it.
Bingo!
That is your opinion, that is NOT the law. POST THE SECTION OF THE LAW THAT STATES THAT!!!
Asylum seekers must be in the U.S . or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or request the opportunity to apply for, asylum.
[Deleted]
Wow Ozzy - you actually got something about the law correct.
Yes, they have to request asylum - but ONLY at their port of entry and that DOES NOT give them the right/authority/permission to enter and stay in the U.S.
Under the law, they have to apply for asylum, but that does not give them the right to stay in the U.S. Technically they "should" return to their home country and await their hearing (which few do), or they can stay in a third country that grants temporary asylum (such as Mexico and a few of the Central American countries), but, they can not enter the U.S. and stay. If they do, they are Illegal Aliens and can and will be deported/jailed.
UNTIL their asylum request is granted, they ARE NOT given permission to reside in the U.S. If they decide/attempt to stay, they are Illegal Aliens.
Would you please be so kind as to state the source of what you posted?
You are continuing the lie.
If what you claim is true, POST THE ACTUAL LAW THAT SAYS IT!!!
Or you could click on the embedded hyperlink for yourself.....
Sorry, I missed the hyperlink. International Rescue Committee is private NGO. What you posted was from said organization, not from a US Government source and not a specific quote of the law. Better luck next time.
8 USC - read to your little heart's content, specifically sections 1324, 1325 and 1326
I would not count on it.
Care to show me where I claimed otherwise???
1stwarrior is supposed to provide the official link to the law he is claiming. He made the claim, he needs to provide the evidence to support that claim.
LOL!!!!!!!!!
It does not address asylum seekers!!!!! Did you not even bother reading it for yourself????
Or did you not care??? It discusses harboring aliens... NOT ASYLUM SEEKERS!!!!
You want to know why I was so sure you would fail, utterly and completely? BECAUSE I DID LOOK IT UP!!
Want to read the whole thing?
USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partI-sec1158.pdf (govinfo.gov)
1324 tells you the little thingy 'bout being an Illegal Alien - which a person is when crossing the border without permission - and what the penalties are for such actions.
Sorry Ozzwald, but the laws are all too interwoven to find one, just one, that sez what you want it to say.
The overall essence is - you cross the border without permission, you are an Illegal Alien - period. It doesn't matter if your GOING to request asylum or whatever floats your boat, you crossed the border WITHOUT permission - you are an Illegal Alien.BUT, in most cases,
UNTIL your request for Asylum is granted/approved, you do not have the freedoms/benefits/care of others in the Immigration program and YOU ARE STILL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN because your entry into the U.S. HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED.
AFTER you cross the border at an approved port of entry or border crossing, IF YOU put in a request for Asylum and have completed the Form I-589, you are STILL an Illegal Alien until your request for Asylum is approved. Then, you will be placed on a Temp Visa for two years, per the books, before you can apply for a change of residency, including "Permanent Residency".
What's your issue with that?
Are you unable to read?
This entire string is about ASYLUM SEEKERS.
What we have been talking about is ASYLUM SEEKERS.
Now that you have been proven wrong, you are trying to avoid talking about ASYLUM SEEKERS.
You have been making claims about ASYLUM SEEKERS but now that you have been proven utterly WRONG, you are desperately trying to change the subject.
Please, with or without your BOLD, show us where my statements are incorrect.
Simply put, when you apply for Asylum, you have to enter the U.S.. When you enter the U.S., if you don't have prior permission (Visa's, etc.), you are an Illegal Alien.
We're talking two different topics. I'm saying, based on experience, that - YES, you have to cross the border to submit your application (Form I-589), but crossing the border to obtain the application, you are, technically, an Illegal Alien - a classification which Asylum Seekers fall into.
Yes, seeking asylum is legal - as legal as the Feds allow it to be. But, seeking asylum does not give you the right/authorization/permission to just enter the U.S. when you damn well feel like it. The section you quoted above are the parameters that must be followed and once you receive notice of your hearing date and after your application has been approved, THEN you have the authorization/permission/right to enter the U.S..
A person crossing the border without permission/authorization is an Immigrant (Alien) who is Undocumented (Illegal).
Biden's administration is allowing/advancing the hearing dates of 25,000 Asylum seekers. The administration is allowing/authorizing 25,000 to attend their court appointed hearings, but they are still classified as Illegal Aliens until/if their application is approved because they are only (supposedly) being allowed in the U.S. to attend their hearing for review of their I-589 (supporting documentation).
I did not state you claimed otherwise, as you are well aware.
Every one of these claims, BY YOU, are false per ASYLUM LAW. I have posted the part about how and who can request asylum, and provided a link to the actual law.
Illegal aliens ARE NOT the same as ASYLUM SEEKERS.
I have provided access to the specific law regarding asylum, when you reply to this, if you reply to this, provide the exact section of the law that justifies what you are claiming. Or just acknowledge you are talking out your ass.
The issue is that some people just refuse to admit they are wrong despite evidence to the contrary being presented and will argue solely for sake of argument. I do not claim to be a legal expert on the subject, but I do in fact as you know, reside just 6 blocks from the AZ/Mexico border fence in Cochise County in SE Arizona. That gives me a better insight that those than live nowhere near or on the border. In addition, I know many Border Patrol agents that reside around me and they all tell me the same things you and I have been saying. I trust their word over most others,
Best of luck. Don't think the legal world is going to change their methods of classifying and practicing law to suit your standards.
The "legal world" deals with the actuals, as they are written. I have provided you with that exact law as pertains to asylum seekers. YOU have chosen to discount that law.
Which points out which of the 2 paths I outlined that you could follow. Addressing the law itself, or talking out of your ass.
You have chosen to ignore the actual law.............
"The "legal world" deals with the actuals, as they are written"
Shows how little you know of the legal world. Most often used word out of an attorney's mouth is "depends" - not "actually".
Still trying to change the subject? You were wrong in all your posts, possibly purposely wrong. Just admit you made your claims up and go away.
[Deleted]
I M P A S S E
[Deleted]
This sounds like a reasonable and judicious process to start slowly processing the refugees who were told to wait in Mexico for their applications to be heard. I realize that white nationalists and rabbid xenophobes do not want them processed ever. That is not possible under laws or by current international agreements. Refugees have the human right to approach American borders and ask for asylum. There is no good reason to make the wait forever in Mexico. If there is no hope their cases will be heard then why should they wait in line in Mexico? They could cross the border first and then seek refugee status here.
Somebody has to process our chickens and pigs cheaply in rural flyover zones. Historically that has been poor first generation refugees. Get over it!
Why can't they wait in Mexico?
Why can't they just stay in Mexico, they let them cross their borders?
“Why can't they wait in Mexico?”
because dems care more about foreigners and criminals than they do about Americans. This should really help the poor and working class /s/. Good job dems.
Because the simple fact is Mexico does not want them. There are too many of them there already trying to get into the US as it is.
Yup ! It'll keep wages down with a glut of cheap labor and it will drive housing prices up since they all need a place to live. A Double Kick in the Balls for the Working Poor of America, Thanks Biden !
I'd tell Mexico "If you let them into your country they are your problem, any non-Mexican asylum seekers who show up at the border will be denied entry as it will be deemed they already have de facto asylum in Mexico".
Yep.
Interesting 'cause the "newest" Mexican policy is to allow "travelers" to request asylum/residency in Mexico. But, you know the "horde" doesn't want to stay in Mexico since it is almost at bad as the country they are running from instead of trying to fix the problem.
Mexico does not want them, Their country did not want them so why would we want them?
I don't want them, do you?
We lowered our pollution and now Biden will let foreigners in and undo the gains in pollution reduction he thinks are so important.
"Asylum-seekers will be tested for COVID-19 before entering the U.S."
another cost to the already overburdened American taxpayer
Actually, President Biden saw hundreds deported in his first days in office.
And put the kibosh on that shortly thereafter.
Yep pretty much.
I find it strange the the same group that wants $15 minimum wage also wants more foreigners
Dems see them as future votes. This isn’t about doing what’s right for America or Americans, this is about power at a selfish level. The country and it’s citizens be damned.
I almost forgot how overtly fucking racist and loathsome certain members of this site are. It’s as if they have no clue about their own ancestry, and how fortunate they are that their ancestors were welcomed by a country eager for hard working immigrants to assist in building this great country.
I recently had some home improvements done. I got three quotes, two from Latino outfits, one from an white guy. The quotes were close but we went with the white guy for reasons having nothing to do with social issues. He strung us along for weeks without getting started or committing to a start or completion date, then out of the blue just backed out entirely leaving us back at square one after four weeks. I called one of the Latino guys and asked if they were still interested. He came out the next day, organized his crews and they went gang busters starting the following day and did a fantastic job. Hardly any of them spoke English and I couldn’t be more proud to employ them.
And I almost forgot how overtly fucking stupid and loathsome certain members of this site are.
^^^^
how overtly fucking stupid and loathsome certain members of this site are.
You really weren't expecting originality were you?
Sorry Hal, but I don't remember our people "welcoming" the Illegal Aliens to help "build" this great country.
It was great before they got here - now look how they futched it up.
I don't remember our people "welcoming" the Illegal Aliens
Employers were. Racists weren’t and still aren’t.
now look how they futched it up.
wow, that doesn’t come across as racist at all!
The article is about asylum seekers and you characterize it as being about border security. [Deleted]
[DELETED]
When has that ever stopped them from making an accusation?
I'm willing to bet you do not live on or anywhere near the US/Mexico border do you?
Hmmmm - "Our" employers, in 1492 and succeeding years, didn't "welcome" the interlopers. The interlopers were not invited and were, for the most part, not welcome. But, as with the Illegal Aliens, they didn't listen to our wishes and desires to leave us alone.
So, explain to me what's "racist" about not wanting unwelcomed Illegal Aliens flooding your country??
The difference is that to those of us who do live on or near the border, it is in fact a matter of security. It is our property and livelihoods that get trampled, damaged, and trespassed on by the illegal aliens currently coming across our borders. Not to mention the huge amounts of trash they leave in their wake. You do not live down here either so you would not know either because the liberal press covers it as little as possible.
1492. Wow, when you have to harken back 500+ years ago to try and make a relevant point, you’re entirely irrelevant. Do you want me to pack up and go home, wherever the fuck that might be based on 25 previous generations of ancestry?
Yeah... I don't remember the Native Americans loving the fact that some Nations were decimated by immigrants, nee "invaders" from Spain, England, or France... just the beginning of things. While not ALL Europeans seeking a "new free world" were bad people, hence people like you or me being here [among others on this site], there were plenty that did awful things to those already here because Natives didn't want to be forced into a specific life / religion / marriage / slavery / war and those Europeans refused to accept that answer.
Sometimes I wonder what would've happened if the interaction between migrating Europeans and Native Americans was peaceful across the board.
Native Americans are still oppressed and segregated. What happened back then is still quite relevant today.
FWIW, which is probably not much, I'd have no issue with "going back to where I came from"... France, Belgium, Ireland, or Canada before US... and for many people, it's not 25 previous generations. My mother in law came from England... that's just an example. There are plenty of immigrants that are far less removed than 25 generations. Everyone I know personally, came here and applied for citizenship and did what they had to so they could become citizens. Historically speaking, those crossing the US / Mexico border illegally, don't tend to follow the rules / laws set forth by the US government. Why are there so many people at the aforementioned border seeking asylum? That's the question that I'd like an answer to, but maybe that's just me.
Meh, whatever.
What are those who want them willing to give up?
I’m willing to give up on lazy American contractors who can’t deliver their service timely and on budget, in return for hard working foreign laborers who are polite and incredibly talented at their jobs.
And yet here you are, in an article about foreigners trying to legally apply for asylum, considering them illegal from the start. Your objective is quite obvious - slam the doors and don’t let a single one of them in under any circumstance. Go ahead and keep gushing about the legal ones though - the group you have no intention of allowing to grow. That’s a very Trumpian tactic.
Many good American contractors are undercut by cheap foreign labor
The bids were basically equal. If the contractor chosen first underbid the job then that’s his mistake. He backed out without any mention of the budget. He’s done excellent work for us before and I don’t hold a grudge, it’s just that he blew it in this case and his Spanish speaking competitors were there to save the day. That’s capitalism at its finest. Diligent workmanship deserves reward.
Amen. Believe it or not we really don't have those problems much down here on the border.
Guess it depends on where you live... the team that did my home's siding only spoke Polish, except for the team lead that is, and they did a fantastic job.
I find that the "mom n pop" businesses take more pride in their work, regardless of race, religion, color, or sex. Those small businesses depend on word of mouth. The guy that did our fencing is a white guy, born and raised in the US, and returned a couple times to fix issues [without additional pay] for 2 years. He's received a ton of business in my neighborhood and from my friends, family and coworkers, because of his work ethic and stellar business practices... for one of the least expensive prices. The guy that did my brick work at another house, was Italian. The guy that did my concrete work is Italian, but employed several Dominicans....
My point is that race, color, language spoken, or country of origin is not relevant regarding work ethic and business practices. There are good people and there are assholes in every race, color, country, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Quite frankly, the only time I've ever bitched about someone's color / country of origin is when I went to a Middle Eastern / Mediterranean restaurant and it was a bunch of white people making the food... it tasted like crap. If I go to a restaurant like that, I WANT to hear "EAJAL! EAJAL!" (sounds like yella) from the kitchen, which means hurry in Arabic.
In our area it’s nearly impossible to find domestic contractors. We had our roof done a while back. We got two quotes, and both salesmen were clearly American citizens, but the quotes were wildly different - one was three times higher than the other. I checked the online reviews and the cheaper outfit had way better reviews as well. Regardless, both outfits used contractors that didn’t speak a word of english. So it’s no so much that nationality of the workers that matters, it’s how the company is run. I make sure to tell everyone I know who is looking for a roofing contractor my experience, and who to avoid like the plague.
So what happens if they are not allowed to come in? Will they turn around and go back or will they try to force their way in.
Lol, why don’t you just tell us what happens instead of posing your supreme knowledge of how everything works as a question? You are just trying to avoid my true assertion that your goal is to deny every single one of them entry.
Feral Cats, keep feeding them and they will keep coming and the domestic cats will suffer
This is just a general comment to all those opposing the 25,000.
You do realize that that was the same attitude that they had at the turn of the last century about most of the people who came through Ellis Island, and they were just immigrating here, and not asylum seekers.
And again when Jews wanted asylum during WWII. We sent the St. Louis packing and they all died.
Apparently, as long as yours got in, to heck with everyone else.
Well Hal, you can always invite them into your own home and support them completely.
If they have people here willing to help support their transition, then they wouldn’t need me to provide that service, would they? Judging by the fact that every contractor here is using their labor already, then they obviously already have the support that you are claiming they lack. Your mindset is just fixated on all foreigners are illegal and want to come here for free goodies. [Deleted]
If you feel that all 25,000 should live here no matter how they enter. I think we should be looking out for the folks that live on the street that are homeless first.
No matter how they enter?? Why are you directing that at me? When did I advocate for illegal entry? If you feel that all 25,000 should be denied entry, then you obviously are prejudging them. [Deleted]
Also, we should be using our resources on people in this country that need food and a roof over their head. Not to mention healthcare. So... I look at it differently. When or if they do come over, where will they live? What about their healthcare? Will they get government assistance that others don’t get living here already?
Your empty platitudes and virtue signaling is noted and well documented here. If you could see foreigners seeking asylum as anything other than freeloading criminals [Deletex]
In 1800s and early 1900s the USA was not so overcrowded and there was little concern of pollution and climate change. There were jobs and land in the west.
Like i have said many times overpopulation is the major problem
I've got a question...
removed for context
Congrats. That might be the dumbest thing you’ve ever said here. That’s a high bar.
Many good American contractors HIRE cheap foreign labor...
That is true as well. Good point Dulay.
Read 8 USC 1324 - then you'll know why.
I have been called racist on NT several times before because I am against illegal immigration and am pro putting American citizens and legal residents first. The outrageously funny thing to me is that I live on the border and am of Mexican/American heritage with the American part taking precedence.
And that's exactly why I said smaller businesses tend to work harder and make sure the customers are satisfied... they depend on word of mouth. Larger companies don't give a damn, because they're getting business no matter what.
It would seem some folks just throw it around to incite and insult. It’s as if their whole goal in life is to spew hate to anyone who has a different opinion. What a sad and lonely existence that must be.
Every urban area of the US [and Europe for that matter] was polluted in the late 1800's. Hell, NY was knee deep in horse shit. In 1900 they reversed the flow of the Chicago river to keep sewage and pollution from the stockyards from spoiling Lake Michigan drinking water.
Here is what Los Angeles looked like in 1904:
THAT had less to do with overpopulation and plenty to do with greed...
[Deleted]
Maybe to keep them from taking American jobs, also employers should be charged
[Deleted]
[deleted.] Those of us on here who have known you a long time from both NV and NT know darn well you are nowhere close to being racist at all.
Someone already did thankfully.
And don't forget the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland.
The Cuyahoga River was once one of the most polluted rivers in the United States as represented by the multitude of times it has caught fire, a recorded number of thirteen starting in 1868. The most potent blaze occurred in 1952 which caused over $1.3 million in damages however, the most fatal fire happened in 1912 with a documented five deaths.
According to the references I've given Ozzwald, employers are "supposed" to be charged and penalized for knowingly hiring Illegal Aliens.
Perrie - what many don't understand is that the U.S., and most countries, have a quota system for the amount of folks they will allow into their countries through immigration. The Immigration Act of 1924 allowed 350,000 folks to apply to enter the U.S. In 2020, the figure was at 7% of a country's population to be allowed to apply.
That quota system includes Refugees, Asylum, Students, Professionals, etc.
[Deleted]
Refuges and asylees have a separate quota. Trump went from 110,000 in 2017 to setting a cap at 18,000 for 2021.
Charger,
Watch "Gangs of New York" and you will see that the people who were living here felt that there the new comers were taking their jobs, and causing over crowding.
Besides, we are talking about just letting in 25,000 asylum-seekers. These are people who are in danger. That would hardly change our population. In fact, one could argue that it wouldn't be noticed since nearly half a million people have died from COVID.
And btw, I do believe that overpopulation is a problem, but these folks are but a drop in the bucket.
First of all, I made a point of saying that I wasn't directing my comment to you.
And for the record, my father's family has been here since the Civil War, so my family predates most.
I never said that YOU wanted that to happen, but that it did happen because of attitudes about seeking asylum. That means that these people are in imminent danger. They are not just immigrating here. They are fleeing.
Listen up: I never said those words or implied anything of the sort to you.
I am not triggered. And this isn't illegal immigration. This is giving asylum to a specific group of people. There is a huge difference. For one, this is done legally and for the other, these folks are in danger.
The comments have been removed.
And therein lies the problem.
Ed, if that ever happens to you, you should flag the comment or get me. That is not to be tolerated.
I have seen programs and movies that show that and my opinion is we did not learn then and now the problem is much worse
The USA needs to preserve and improve our quality of life first
25,000 is about half the population of the county I live in and I think it is overpopulated and rapidly getting worse. Open space is disappearing, water resources and government services are stressed and the government wants more taxes. Crime is much worse. People are not as friendly as they used to be and it is not as safe.
until we get our population numbers under control we can not keep letting more in.
As for the drop in the bucket argument, when will it stop?
But wait, I thought liberals wanted to reduce the population, hence abortion?
The US population is actually on a decline since the 1960's.
I can't speak to what is happening in your neck of the woods, but it isn't happening because we are growing in population because we are approaching zero growth. It is probably just people moving from one place to another.
American's leave America every year. In the last recorded year, 9,000,000 left America for another country. This has to be part of the equation. That and number of births.
I support abortion rights, taxpayer funded birth control and don't like immigration
I think population decrease is a good thing.
I know that. I was clarifying my position since I was injecting myself into a conversation.
But you see that is the problem with the whole argument. This article is not about illegal immigration. It is about very legal amnesty. The fact that it went down that rabbit hole show how easy it is to change the direction of a discussion and twist its meaning.
Again, not the topic here. The topic is legal amnesty.
The topic has gotten a little wide here
Obviously, since we are not at zero population growth, but it is hardly where we were in the 60's
Are they? From what? Just because they can't find work in there own country does not mean they are in danger that requires them to seek asylum.
Ok, not a sweeping generalization this time, just a false statement, or as you prefer a dog whistle.
The proper term is tribalism.
I remember it since kindergarten.
Not much has changed.
Racism is and always has been easy to identify when racial differences were great.
Tribalism is more a subtle reminder of nationality, religion or language, an accent we can identify as "not of our tribe".
2nd & 3rd generation Central Americans (especially those with European surnames )
blend in easily with white people of European decent every day throughout the Southwest.
Prejudice starts with what we hear; it is reinforced or discarded by what we see.
Asylum has two basic requirements. First, asylum applicants must establish that they fear persecution in their home country. Second, applicants must prove that they would be persecuted on account of at least one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.
So no, not work.
So do I.
And they overwhelming majority if not all of those seeking asylum from the latin american areas are coming for economic reasons and are not eligible for asylum. They do no belong here or have any right to enter the country.
Are you aware that the Mexican Gov has its own agency to checkout if asylum is qualified, even before they apply here? So the ones applying have met those and now we see if they meet ours.
And do you think only 25,000 need to come here for economic reasons? More like millions and let me make myself clear, I am not advocating for that.
They do if they do it legally. That is the difference between asylum and immigration and for the record, immigration is allowed to this country. My future son in law is Italian.
Which is actually a good thing if a person is concerned with climate change and pandemics.
I realize that some people don't know or don't care that we already have an overpopulation problem that is straining the Earth's resources to supply the wants of our species.
Is the US and other developed nations supposed to move the world's populations to their nations? Why? How is this beneficial when our power grids can't even keep up with tonight's demands to keep many of our current citizens alive during this winter storm?
We really need leaders more concerned with helping people instead of exploiting them.
I watched a John Oliver video that addressed the next pandemic that might shed some light on this issue.
John Oliver returns from hiatus to discuss how the next pandemic could happen (msn.com)
The USA needs to preserve and improve our quality of life first
I’m still trying to figure out how my quality of life has been diminished by immigrants. These are people doing jobs Americans think they are too good for, or that they deserve high pay and benefits for. What would your quality of life be if the grocery store hardly ever had fresh vegetables? How about if you needed a new roof but had to wait two years to get a spot in line with everyone else who needs a roof, and pay more for it? Donald Trump used almost exclusively immigrant labor, and until he was under a bigger microscope if was primarily illegal aliens and he damn well knew it. He has a history of using illegal immigrants in his construction projects just to eventually fuck them over because of their vulnerable position, and he ends up being the mouthpiece for illegal immigration. Go figure.
I have, and in some cases it seems they were unseen or ignored. But I accept that the mods can't be everywhere at once and just go on.
Doesn't almost every politician in DC do so to some extent? Seems the majority get richer and richer the longer they stay in office. That sure seems like exploitation to me.
Because he has been the mouthpiece for illegal immigration while simultaneously benefiting from it and using it to exploit them himself. Can you read?
The jobs should be improved by better working conditions, better pay and benefits and more respect for workers or automated, workers provided with better equipment or just not done here. Instead of bring in people from other countries to do bottom level work.
Illegal immigration is an issue. Did I say he’s pro illegal immigration?! How do you remember to breathe?
Better working conditions picking produce? What do you want? Air conditioning? Americans are less and less willing to work hard, immigrants work hard as hell.
That might change when they can't get their Kale.
Visit one of the rural towns dominated by one huge hog or chicken processing plant, your the facilities and examine who is doing the dirty work and how they live.
But, good luck finding kale at the local grocer!
Apparently, I needed to add that s/ at the end.
Look at the way hay is made today compared to years ago. I see a farmer in an air conditioned tractor
And the result today is that headlines are screaming that the poor brown people are dying from covid in large numbers because of lack of access to proper medical care in the US., This would not be the case if our government hadn't encouraged it to happen through open borders and programs/policies that supported illegal vs legal immigration in order to boost US population because of declines in US birth rate. People actually choosing to have less children is viewed as detrimental to the business model of the US. The business model depends on an ever expanding base of wage slaves and mindless consumption.
All workers should be receiving proper compensation and benefits to live well in the US. When people in the US truly care more about compensating workers instead of their 401Ks, then this will happen. Wall Street thrives by exploiting people's labor.
Legitimate labor shortages should be identified and dealt with accordingly.
And as for the farm labor issue, there are very, very few illegal immigrants employed in agriculture in the US. And there really should be zero. Farmers are allowed as many visas as necessary for farm workers and have been for some time.
E-verify should be mandatory for every job in the US.
A news item today about a possible new invasive species in Florida waters. Another possible link to our next pandemic.
Overpopulation is the major cause of this problem and many other problems
Meh, 25,000 more people to pick my fruit, Whatever.
That's how it starts. God willing, in three generations they are your doctors and nurses.
What about the Americans they displace? Shouldn't they be the doctors and lawyers and such?
Charger, that was the argument used for every immigrant group for over 150 years now.
Old argument that has never been resolved. People who have established their standing have every right to be upset about newcomers.
How would the government where they are coming from treat a bunch of Americans with no money and many problems that showed up demanding to be let in and supported and treated like they had a right to just come there?
How would the citizens of that country feel?
You probably should not expect a reasonable or coherent answer on that one.
It was. Some are just not willing or capable of accepting it.
I for one don't think that the US should be gauging itself against how other countries treat people.
and, I don't think that the US should be taking in other country's people
That's hilarious considering we're just as glad they don't depend on you and yours here either!
Then we will need to violate various multinational treaties.
Actually, since we are obligated through treaties to take in qualified refugees and asylum seekers, it did depend on 'we the people' who elected the Presidents that negotiated and legislators that approved those treaties.