Liberal elites can solve the illegal immigrant problem immediately -- here’s how

“I applaud your ongoing concern for the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants streaming toward, and trying to cross, our border.

Knowing there is no way you would cravenly use them as cheap political pawns to attack a president who has permanently taken up residence in your troubled minds, I offer up a solution which will end the crisis immediately.

EX-OBAMA BORDER PATROL CHIEF SUPPORTS IDEA OF SENDING MIGRANT DETAINEES TO SANCTUARY CITIES

I have created a sign-up sheet for you to fill out, then pass along to the next entitled liberal to your left.

The sign-up sheet simply stipulates that you personally will take as many illegal immigrants as will fit into every square foot of your luxurious home, and then, forever more, feed them, clothe them, and pay for their educational and medical needs.

Crisis over.

Now, I must admit that I cribbed part of this brilliant and foolproof plan from one of your far-left socialist dictator heroes.”

Best way to 'solve the immigration problem.'  Deport the Trumpers--import the immigrants.

Best way to 'solve the immigration problem.'

I thought we didn't have an illegal alien immigrant problem.

Deport the Trumpers--import the immigrants.

Wow. That is just freaking brilliant.

Yes it is, isn't it. 

Drain the swamp, right?

That is the democrat agenda.  Replace middle and working class American citizens with voting illegal aliens however they get it done. 

It is indeed a brilliant idea.  

It is indeed a brilliant idea.

I am sure it is considered one on the playground.

Why, we have no need to follow the Constitution because one side is still pissed about losing, right?

So it would seem.  They just want to act and forget about that meddlesome constitution they so despise.  

Yes it is, isn't it. 

He was being facetious. Absolutely NOTHING brilliant about the post. Quite the absolute opposite.

That’s how I see it as well. It’s sad that some see middle and working class Americans as their swamp.  

Under what part of the constitution would you deport non naturalized born in America citizens?  

Under what part of the constitution would you deport non naturalized born in America citizens?

It is obvious that the U S Constitution doesn't mean much to him. It doesn't seem to apply to people he disagrees with.

'Best way to 'solve the immigration problem.'  Deport the Trumpers--import the immigrants.'

Splendid idea!

Let's get started!

"I applaud your ongoing concern for the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants streaming toward, and trying to cross, our border."

How exactly are they "illegal immigrants" if they are just "streaming toward" our border? Oh, that's right, dishonest right wing pundits and bigots have already labeled them "illegal" before they've even arrived at our border to legally seek asylum. The only "problem" is we don't have more immigration judges that are trained so they can approve these asylum seekers.

They are illegal if they know in advance their asylum claims are not valid.  Then they disappear becoming illegals.  No different then overstaying a VISA, ignoring a court ordered deportation, or simply ignoring the immigration legal system all together.

cis

Also notable within those   statistics   is the increase in the asylum denial rate. That denial rate went from 22.56 percent in FY 2016 to 33.51 percent in FY 2017, an almost 50 percent increase in one year. The denial rate for the first two quarters of FY 2018 shows a similar increase in asylum denials (41.82 percent), an almost 25 percent increase over FY 2017. Most significantly, however, the actual number of asylum denials for the first two quarters of FY 2018 (11,937) is already greater than the number of denials in FY 2016 (11,736). This increase in denials likely reflects the decrease in the number of administratively closed asylum cases.

Specifically, in FY 2016, 18,872 asylum cases were administratively closed, whereas in FY 2017, only 9,840 cases were, a figure that dropped to 1,511 in the first two quarters of FY 2018. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) explained in a   June 2017 report   on backlogs before the immigration court:

Administrative closure is a procedural tool available to an immigration judge which is used, as appropriate under the circumstances, to temporarily remove a case from the active calendar. Cases that are administratively closed can be recalendared at a later date.

Most of those administratively closed cases would likely have resulted in denials, as an alien with a strong asylum claim would have opposed administrative closure, or would have moved to recalendar an administratively closed case. As the BIA held in   Matter of W-Y-U- :

An alien in removal proceedings has a right to seek asylum and related relief from persecution. ... Therefore, assuming that his application was properly filed and that he is eligible for the relief sought, the respondent has a right to a hearing on the merits of his claim. If his application is successful, he may be eligible for lawful status in the United States, while administrative closure provides him no legal status.

If this is correct, fewer aliens with non-meritorious asylum claims are being allowed to remain in the United States indefinitely.

Interestingly, according to the   EOIR statistics , the number of   in absentia   orders, that is, orders of removal issued in cases when the alien fails to appear, continues to increase. In FY 2017, 40,579   in absentia   removal orders were issued, an increase of more than 26 percent over FY 2016, when 32,149   in absentia   removal orders were issued. For the first two quarters of FY 2018, 22,411   in absentia   orders were issued; if this trend continues for the rest of the fiscal year, the number of removal orders issued after aliens fail to appear for their hearings will surpass FY 2017.

The reason for the increase in   in absentia   orders is not entirely clear, but may reflect a concern amongst aliens with no relief, or weak claims to relief, that they are more likely to be ordered removed under the Trump administration than they were under the Obama administration. That said, the number of   in absentia   orders of removal has been steadily increasing since FY 2012, following a drop off between FY 2010 (20,412   in absentia   orders of removal) and FY 2012 (16,491   in absentia   orders of removal).

They are illegal if they know in advance their asylum claims are not valid.

Nonsense. As long as they present themselves for asylum at a port of entry or immediately upon entering the US they are following the letter of the law. It's not up to some ignorant randos claiming everyone is an "illegal" which is a misnomer anyway. You can't be an "illegal" human or "Illegal" immigrant. You can be undocumented, you can be in the States "illegally", none of that makes the people themselves "illegal". It's that kind of common demonization that allows some to imagine taking kids away from their "illegal" parents is somehow justified.

BS to your nonsense. Seeking better employment opportunities is not an accepted reason for seeking asylum.

As for your garbage about "undocumented" as compared to "illegal". If they are violating our immigration laws they are here illegally, period. No amount of deflection can change that.

It's that kind of common demonization that allows some to imagine taking kids away from their "illegal" parents is somehow justified.

Find the morons that started lawsuits saying kids couldn't be held with parents in detention centers. Then find Obama and start on him; as it was his policy Trump expanded on when it came to separating kids from parents. Don't worry, Trump violated the courts and used an EO to keep kids with their families again in the detention centers. Until the same morons file new complaints with the courts that is.

qz

Trump is also bracing for legal challenges. His family detention policy likely violates a court settlement that mandates how the federal government should treat immigrant children. Under the Flores settlement, authorities are not allowed to hold children for long periods of time. After immigrant advocates sued the Obama administration for locking whole families in detention, a federal court e xtended the Flores protections   to children traveling with relatives. (It was those protections that Trump was trying  to skirt   by separating adults from children.) The Trump administration will likely be subject to the same kind of lawsuit.

The executive order instructs attorney general Jeff Sessions to ask for the federal court’s permission to change the terms of the Flores agreement so that the families can be kept in custody until their cases are resolved. Republicans in Congress had also come up with several proposals to detain children along with their parents, though their chances of passing are slim.

People leaving a country to seek asylum for a real or perceived danger/threat are according to international law to seek asylum in the first safe country they come to.  They are not to travel the entire length of the first country south to north to seek it in a different nation.  So yes, people in Mexico who arrived there from somewhere else are in fact  illegally seeking asylum here.  

Illegal immigration problem?

What problem?

Personally, it doesn't bother me-- its not something I think about.

Because there are other things in my life that are much, much more important to me.

I think Trump is trying to convince gullible people that's its YUGELY IMPORTANT (!!!!) as a way to distract from his corruption...

(Regardless of what the Mueller report findings will be, IMO the real threat to the Trumpster-- as well as to the entire Trump Crime Family-- will be the criminal charges that will come out of court proceedings in NY and DC). Yep-- courts of law, not some investigation....

But this is a made up crisis. How do I know this? because for the first two years of Trump's presidency the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. If illegal immigration was really such a priority for them, they could've fixed "the problem".

But of course they didn't. Why? Because it wasn't a priority for the Republicans-- that's why!