Options

U.S. Immigration, Part 2

zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
Since we are due for a new immigration thread after 100 pages I'm going to reboot the old one that was mod approved.
ElJeffe wrote: »
Here is a thread for discussing American immigration and related policy. The last thread was closed because people were being snarky, hostile, and generally acting in ways not conducive to enjoyable discussion. It is okay to engage in impassioned debate! It is not okay to use that passion to make this thread an unpleasant place for others, even if you care really super hard about something. It is also not okay to tell someone what their TRUE motivations OBVIOUSLY are, or rehash old arguments from other threads.

We are starting this thread with some preemptive kickings. We are not against adding more to the list, and this thread is operating on a pretty zero tolerance policy right now.

Happy trails, folks!

«13

Posts

  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited June 4
    Carrying over from the previous
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Trump literally rode to power by making populist concerns about immigration the core of his campaign. I hope nobody has forgotten in the almost decade since that was his core plank and grievance.

    This is still a big factor in the unengaged support he still has. And a huge weakness in that he had his shot for four years and didn't 'solve' the problem. Then refused and spiked a deal that would supposedly address many of those problems.

    Attacking that big glaring vulnerability is just smart politics when for whatever stupid reason Convicted Felon vs not the worst President are polling neck and neck.

    It is not “attacking” Trump in any meaningful way by carrying out and institutionalizing his previous policy maneuvers

    All that tells me is you want Trump policies, gilded with a fetid leaf of Democratic respectability, material similarity be damned.

    Lanz on
  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Trump literally rode to power by making populist concerns about immigration the core of his campaign. I hope nobody has forgotten in the almost decade since that was his core plank and grievance.

    This is still a big factor in the unengaged support he still has. And a huge weakness in that he had his shot for four years and didn't 'solve' the problem. Then refused and spiked a deal that would supposedly address many of those problems.

    Attacking that big glaring vulnerability is just smart politics when for whatever stupid reason Convicted Felon vs not the worst President are polling neck and neck.

    It is not “attacking” Trump in any meaningful way by carrying out and institutionalizing his previous policy maneuvers

    All that tells me is you want Trump policies, gilded with a fetid leafing of Democratic respectability, material similarity be damned.

    @Lanz

    Nobody here wants any Trump policies and Trump is a piece of shit.

    But his speaking to immigration being broken (it is, we all agree even not how it is) and needing to be fixed is a resounding message that a whole lot of voters do prioritize.

    Unfortunately what people want isn't open frictionless borders and they want security, even the groups you think would be most wary of that.

    So yeah embracing the things people wanted in Trump policies while discarding the pointless cruelty in favor of good implementation is literally the definition of good policy.

  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited June 4
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Trump literally rode to power by making populist concerns about immigration the core of his campaign. I hope nobody has forgotten in the almost decade since that was his core plank and grievance.

    This is still a big factor in the unengaged support he still has. And a huge weakness in that he had his shot for four years and didn't 'solve' the problem. Then refused and spiked a deal that would supposedly address many of those problems.

    Attacking that big glaring vulnerability is just smart politics when for whatever stupid reason Convicted Felon vs not the worst President are polling neck and neck.

    It is not “attacking” Trump in any meaningful way by carrying out and institutionalizing his previous policy maneuvers

    All that tells me is you want Trump policies, gilded with a fetid leafing of Democratic respectability, material similarity be damned.


    Nobody here wants any Trump policies and Trump is a piece of shit.

    But his speaking to immigration being broken (it is, we all agree even not how it is) and needing to be fixed is a resounding message that a whole lot of voters do prioritize.

    Unfortunately what people want isn't open frictionless borders and they want security, even the groups you think would be most wary of that.

    So yeah embracing the things people wanted in Trump policies while discarding the pointless cruelty in favor of good implementation is literally the definition of good policy.

    Well this EO is not that so it would seem to be a failure in that regard.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited June 4
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Trump literally rode to power by making populist concerns about immigration the core of his campaign. I hope nobody has forgotten in the almost decade since that was his core plank and grievance.

    This is still a big factor in the unengaged support he still has. And a huge weakness in that he had his shot for four years and didn't 'solve' the problem. Then refused and spiked a deal that would supposedly address many of those problems.

    Attacking that big glaring vulnerability is just smart politics when for whatever stupid reason Convicted Felon vs not the worst President are polling neck and neck.

    It is not “attacking” Trump in any meaningful way by carrying out and institutionalizing his previous policy maneuvers

    All that tells me is you want Trump policies, gilded with a fetid leafing of Democratic respectability, material similarity be damned.

    [LANZ EDIT: removing my own batsignal]

    Nobody here wants any Trump policies and Trump is a piece of shit.

    But his speaking to immigration being broken (it is, we all agree even not how it is) and needing to be fixed is a resounding message that a whole lot of voters do prioritize.

    Unfortunately what people want isn't open frictionless borders and they want security, even the groups you think would be most wary of that.

    So yeah embracing the things people wanted in Trump policies while discarding the pointless cruelty in favor of good implementation is literally the definition of good policy.

    Not wanting the president to have near unilateral power to shut the boarder down over an arbitrary number of crossings being reached isn’t open border advocation, this EO isn’t sound Immigration policy period. It’s a power ripe for abuse, especially any time the right regains the White House.

    Shutting the border down like this ain’t any more security than making you dump your water bottle out before boarding a plane is: it’s theatre, and theatre meant to disguise the xenophobic rot at the core of this policy

    EDIT: Forgot to complete my first thought in sentence one before the second thought.

    Lanz on
  • Options
    MillMill Registered User regular
    I'll not that "it's complicated" is being used different by the GOP than how most sane people would use the term. The GOP trots that shit out because they know they neither have the votes for what they want to do and they know it becomes very unpopular with the public once people hear that they want to deport 10.5 million plus people and start putting kids in cages again. There is also an element of them not even being bothered to consider the issue altogether and all the aspects that make it complex. So yeah, absolutely give the GOP tons of shit for trotting the phrase out, but most others that bring it up are actually looking at the issue for what it is.

    Now it would really help if the GOP would get the fuck out of the way because there are things Congress could do that would help with the immigration issue and some of that would be tackling in other issues that either feed into the immigration problem, but creating refugees, or tackling things that would allow localities to better handling their growing populations.

    One vile aspect of the right's decade long bullshit narrative, that the media keeps carrying, is that it's ignoring how even if you could magically solve the immigration stuff and have zero undocumented people in the US, a shit ton of localities are ill equip to care for their current populations, even if they were reduced down to just the people here legally.

    I'd argue the most complex aspect of immigration is going to be how you deal with criminality. You have to have a universally fair system, which I think many of us agree isn't true. You need a system where for the most part, law breakers get caught relatively soon after breaking the law and that you almost always catch people that are violating the law. That the punishments are reasonable, fair and act as a deterrent (as in your crooks always feel like it's never worth incurring the punishment for getting caught, sadly this doesn't exist when we look at all the abuses a number of businesses have gotten up to with hiring immigrants under the table, it's too the point that for many it's just the cost of doing business). You have to make sure the laws are reasonable, this is where you run into the huge divide on immigration because some want open borders, while others don't. You also have to make sure that law enforcement respects people rights and doesn't become an oppressive force. The right loves to come back to this one because the left has been failing on this aspect for one reason or another. Not saying the right is correct, in fact, they are pretty fucking wrong, but this is also one of those areas where they know they can't get away with trotting out empty bullshit for easy votes. There are a ton of low information voters that will happily trade away their rights, if they think they'll get security out of it and for many, the idea of let the good guys with guns, shoot all the law breakers," is very simple and appealing.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    edited June 4
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Trump literally rode to power by making populist concerns about immigration the core of his campaign. I hope nobody has forgotten in the almost decade since that was his core plank and grievance.

    This is still a big factor in the unengaged support he still has. And a huge weakness in that he had his shot for four years and didn't 'solve' the problem. Then refused and spiked a deal that would supposedly address many of those problems.

    Attacking that big glaring vulnerability is just smart politics when for whatever stupid reason Convicted Felon vs not the worst President are polling neck and neck.

    It is not “attacking” Trump in any meaningful way by carrying out and institutionalizing his previous policy maneuvers

    All that tells me is you want Trump policies, gilded with a fetid leafing of Democratic respectability, material similarity be damned.

    Lanz

    Nobody here wants any Trump policies and Trump is a piece of shit.

    But his speaking to immigration being broken (it is, we all agree even not how it is) and needing to be fixed is a resounding message that a whole lot of voters do prioritize.

    Unfortunately what people want isn't open frictionless borders and they want security, even the groups you think would be most wary of that.

    So yeah embracing the things people wanted in Trump policies while discarding the pointless cruelty in favor of good implementation is literally the definition of good policy.

    This is kinda just projecting a favorable rationale onto the executive order without any evidence.

    Oghulk on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    2500 cases a day is kind of an insane limit, thats 900k cases a year. There are only about 600 immigration judges.

    Even if there werent anything else for them to do but processing claims made at the us-mexico ports of entry that would be an unsustainable workload. To say nothing of the 3m cases backlog.

    As a point of comparison in 2022 there were only 72,000 defendants in federal criminal cases.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 4
    Unfortunately the people are not who any political party serves first, but rather those who empower and enrich them. Lobbyists, special interest groups (some of which we like), social clubs, fraternities, mutual black mail pacts, party hosts, and people with islands of minors all take precedence.

    Incenjucar on
  • Options
    TuminTumin Registered User regular
    2500 cases a day is kind of an insane limit, thats 900k cases a year. There are only about 600 immigration judges.

    Even if there werent anything else for them to do but processing claims made at the us-mexico ports of entry that would be an unsustainable workload. To say nothing of the 3m cases backlog.

    As a point of comparison in 2022 there were only 72,000 defendants in federal criminal cases.

    Do immigration judges weigh in on standard refugee cases? I thought it was mostly handled by the bureaucracy.

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    2500 cases a day is kind of an insane limit, thats 900k cases a year. There are only about 600 immigration judges.

    Even if there werent anything else for them to do but processing claims made at the us-mexico ports of entry that would be an unsustainable workload. To say nothing of the 3m cases backlog.

    As a point of comparison in 2022 there were only 72,000 defendants in federal criminal cases.

    Do immigration judges weigh in on standard refugee cases? I thought it was mostly handled by the bureaucracy.

    Here's the info graphic I found.

    1c9w17r1nr5a.jpg

    I belive there are more complete ones with various appeals and more beurocratic steps shown but basically yes every asylum case goes before an immigration judge at least once.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    edited June 4
    Tumin wrote: »
    2500 cases a day is kind of an insane limit, thats 900k cases a year. There are only about 600 immigration judges.

    Even if there werent anything else for them to do but processing claims made at the us-mexico ports of entry that would be an unsustainable workload. To say nothing of the 3m cases backlog.

    As a point of comparison in 2022 there were only 72,000 defendants in federal criminal cases.

    Do immigration judges weigh in on standard refugee cases? I thought it was mostly handled by the bureaucracy.

    Here's the info graphic I found.

    1c9w17r1nr5a.jpg

    I belive there are more complete ones with various appeals and more beurocratic steps shown but basically yes every asylum case goes before an immigration judge at least once.

    I mean, the answer to "X part of the government is overwhelmed" is just "throw money at it". It's literally a problem you can solve by just throwing money at it until it goes away (by hiring people).

    Of course, the issue with the immigration process isn't just the volume.

    Edit: As a counterpoint to the volume complaints, Ellis Island peaked at just over 1 million immigrants in a year once upon a time.

    Polaritie on
    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • Options
    TuminTumin Registered User regular
    edited June 4
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Trump literally rode to power by making populist concerns about immigration the core of his campaign. I hope nobody has forgotten in the almost decade since that was his core plank and grievance.

    This is still a big factor in the unengaged support he still has. And a huge weakness in that he had his shot for four years and didn't 'solve' the problem. Then refused and spiked a deal that would supposedly address many of those problems.

    Attacking that big glaring vulnerability is just smart politics when for whatever stupid reason Convicted Felon vs not the worst President are polling neck and neck.

    It is not “attacking” Trump in any meaningful way by carrying out and institutionalizing his previous policy maneuvers

    All that tells me is you want Trump policies, gilded with a fetid leafing of Democratic respectability, material similarity be damned.

    [LANZ EDIT: removing my own batsignal]

    Nobody here wants any Trump policies and Trump is a piece of shit.

    But his speaking to immigration being broken (it is, we all agree even not how it is) and needing to be fixed is a resounding message that a whole lot of voters do prioritize.

    Unfortunately what people want isn't open frictionless borders and they want security, even the groups you think would be most wary of that.

    So yeah embracing the things people wanted in Trump policies while discarding the pointless cruelty in favor of good implementation is literally the definition of good policy.

    Not wanting the president to have near unilateral power to shut the boarder down over an arbitrary number of crossings being reached isn’t open border advocation, this EO isn’t sound Immigration policy period. It’s a power ripe for abuse, especially any time the right regains the White House.

    Shutting the border down like this ain’t any more security than making you dump your water bottle out before boarding a plane is: it’s theatre, and theatre meant to disguise the xenophobic rot at the core of this policy

    EDIT: Forgot to complete my first thought in sentence one before the second thought.

    It isn't about security even if the spin is that way, it's about a fair way to manage overburdened systems in which arrivals are unpredictable and have to be determined one by one.

    A numerical limit has some nice equity things going for it; you know what might hit the system, you dont discriminate by origin or other attributes, it's a very easy to administer line and not subject to bias on the ground (in theory; all systems are equally subject to bribery).

    I dont know a facially fairer way to do it, even if the outcomes are unfair, you cant determine that prior to processing people...in the overbirdened system...
    Tumin wrote: »
    2500 cases a day is kind of an insane limit, thats 900k cases a year. There are only about 600 immigration judges.

    Even if there werent anything else for them to do but processing claims made at the us-mexico ports of entry that would be an unsustainable workload. To say nothing of the 3m cases backlog.

    As a point of comparison in 2022 there were only 72,000 defendants in federal criminal cases.

    Do immigration judges weigh in on standard refugee cases? I thought it was mostly handled by the bureaucracy.

    Here's the info graphic I found.

    1c9w17r1nr5a.jpg

    I belive there are more complete ones with various appeals and more beurocratic steps shown but basically yes every asylum case goes before an immigration judge at least once.

    Sure, but the problem AT the border is about the CBP side; court dates are callback dates. And they passed a security interview and a credible fear interview! So shouldnt we give them the benefit of the doubt at that point?

    I just dont see what judges have to do with the problem being addressed.

    Tumin on
  • Options
    Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited June 4
    I'm not going to pre-emptively kick anyone from this thread (in several cases, the pre-emptively kicked poster has already been banned), but I will be watching it for bad behavior and personal attacks. This is a subject that many people are passionate about, and in some cases, a subject that affects people on a personal level with their family and friends. Please be aware of this and have some level of empathy. Also, if someone is trolling you or making snarky comments, don't take the bait. That's what the report button is for.

    And going with that, if you are posting only to "win" on the Internet and make someone else feel bad... don't do it. Just don't. We don't need that kind of content here. This thread is on a higher "alert" level, as it were, than other threads, so I will be doling out points for infractions.

    Hahnsoo1 on
    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Money doesn't instantly train a bunch of government employees with legal backgrounds, and taxing the rich to get that money remains the lasting barrier.

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited June 4
    zagdrob wrote: »
    So yeah embracing the things people wanted in Trump policies while discarding the pointless cruelty in favor of good implementation is literally the definition of good policy.

    "The cruelty is the point" is no longer in vogue?

    Anyway, if one party just brays for blood and the other party adopts the position where their opposition was 4 years prior its wholly to be expected that right wing immigration is "what the people want", its the only game in town.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    This is still not where the Trump administration was.

    Even though it's bad.

  • Options
    IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Tarantio wrote: »
    This is still not where the Trump administration was.

    Even though it's bad.

    Being worse than Democrats is one of the main Republican goals, so they will always be worse. Makes it that much more vital to be better, so that Republicans don't have to get creative to find a way to be worse.

  • Options
    MillMill Registered User regular
    Pretty much, if Congress would do their job, aka xenophobic rat fucking republicans stop stonewalling everything when they aren't allowed to implement their monstrous solutions. Better funding, resulting in better training and adequate resources would go a long ways towards reducing how much immigrants and refugees have to deal with the the law enforcement side of immigration, ideally it would be almost never, or at the very least only dealing with the ones that are going to be least likely to be shitheads (not this is not condoning how shitty law enforcement is).

    Also addressing some aspects of US policy that contributes to the shit that is creating refugees, would also help. Of the top of my head, that would be climate change and organized crimes bullshit. Gun control would do wonders to start limiting the ease that the cartels could access getting lots of firearms and let's be real, this nation is letting the gun worshipping shitheads get away with making firearms available to the public, that have no fucking business being on the civilian market or in the hands of police. Then there is the drug trade, probably marijuana legalization will help a bit in cutting money off to the cartels, but there is still a need to address other issues that result in people seeking out drugs as an escape or getting hooked on them as a failure of the healthcare system (You can get something that needs a pain killer, while you await being able to see and doc and schedule surgery. Only in our system, they'll give you an opioid, and leaving you hanging long enough that you end up being addicted because you never get a doc or it takes ages to finally get one). Granted, you also get the problem where even if the US gets sane gun control laws, a better handle on it's drug issue and being more proactive on climate change, you do have to factor in how the actions of other countries influence things because the US is only a significant factor on this hemisphere, it's not the sole factor.

    Anyways one tricky aspect here is you hit a point where something is going to have to be done in Mexico. The ideal would be the US gets it's shit straightened up, but if the cartels control things, right across the border, that does pose an issue for people to access the legal means of entry. I'm sure the asshole cartels love doing all sorts of vile shit to discourage refugees and others from use ports of entry because they want lots of people crossing the border; especially, people that might make it a point to get found, so that they can be processed. It means that resources are the border get bogged down with dealing with people that aren't criminals, instead of being free to make it much more difficult for the cartels to run their smuggling operations. It's not just avoid having them get stuck in bureaucratic limbo or denied entry for bullshit reasons, but also ensuring that immigrants feel that they can safely access ports of entry.

  • Options
    HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    As a reminder, asylees are not the main case of immigrants or even undocumented. In fact, by DEFINITION, asylees are legal immigrants, even if they get denied. The right is targetting this process because it allows some brown people in without them being able to raise the spectre of them being "bad guys"

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Unfortunately the people are not who any political party serves first, but rather those who empower and enrich them. Lobbyists, special interest groups (some of which we like), social clubs, fraternities, mutual black mail pacts, party hosts, and people with islands of minors all take precedence.

    The people are the ones mostly asking for immigration restrictions though. This isn't some kind of lobbyist driven effort. It's populist.

    This is the reason you see Democrats addressing the issue directly lately. That's what they are being pressured to do by voters and their lower level party members who are responding to their own constituents.

    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Money doesn't instantly train a bunch of government employees with legal backgrounds, and taxing the rich to get that money remains the lasting barrier.

    It is not the barrier here. The problem is not that they don't have enough money. It's that you need Congress to pass legislation to allocate the money that already exists to the problem. But Congress isn't doing that and hasn't for decades.

  • Options
    MagellMagell Detroit Machine Guns Fort MyersRegistered User regular
    There's plenty of money to fix immigration. ICE has an 8 billion dollar budget and doesn't do anything the Border Patrol can't already do so we can reform ICE to actually be useful.

  • Options
    FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Unfortunately the people are not who any political party serves first, but rather those who empower and enrich them. Lobbyists, special interest groups (some of which we like), social clubs, fraternities, mutual black mail pacts, party hosts, and people with islands of minors all take precedence.

    The people are the ones mostly asking for immigration restrictions though. This isn't some kind of lobbyist driven effort. It's populist.

    This is the reason you see Democrats addressing the issue directly lately. That's what they are being pressured to do by voters and their lower level party members who are responding to their own constituents.

    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Money doesn't instantly train a bunch of government employees with legal backgrounds, and taxing the rich to get that money remains the lasting barrier.

    It is not the barrier here. The problem is not that they don't have enough money. It's that you need Congress to pass legislation to allocate the money that already exists to the problem. But Congress isn't doing that and hasn't for decades.

    I feel you were saying the exact same thing about Biden sending billions in military aid to Israel, and popular consensus on that changed.

    I think the same can be done with immigration, if the party wanted to, they could sell the base on more liberal immigration policies.

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Magell wrote: »
    There's plenty of money to fix immigration. ICE has an 8 billion dollar budget and doesn't do anything the Border Patrol can't already do so we can reform ICE to actually be useful.

    It's not a matter of money. It's a matter of how Congress allocates that money.

    The US government has basically infinity dollars that it can spend where and how it wants.

    If Congress allocates 8 billion dollars to ICE for MRAPs and tactical gear, unless or until Congress passes legislation that reforms ICE and reallocates that money (or allocates new money) towards actual useful helpful things that budgeted number of dollars might as well not exist for the sake of doing good things.

    Which is the whole problem - immigration could be easily and effectively reformed and improved (not that there wouldn't be other sticking points and emergent issues) if there were the votes for it. Since there aren't the votes, we're stuck with this broken shitty system. Same problem as **gestures in all directions**

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 4
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    As a reminder, asylees are not the main case of immigrants or even undocumented. In fact, by DEFINITION, asylees are legal immigrants, even if they get denied. The right is targetting this process because it allows some brown people in without them being able to raise the spectre of them being "bad guys"


    Part of the issue is that the asylum seeker load has just exploded.

    In 2011 there were 11,217 new receipts resulting in 9,423 credible fear findings in 2019 those numbers were 105,300 / 92,623
    The USCIC asylum numbers were 44,617(2011) and 148,956 (2019)

    2022 the number was 239,000 (2022)

    The system is breaking down because there has been an order of magnitude change in applications in the last decade and and basically no increase in resources to address it.

    nlmwajz9o7vr.png

    I'm not going to pretend the GOP isn't racist. But from the viewpoint of the typical American who isn't a political junkie, what is obvious is that the government is failing here. On top of it's general failure to curtail illegal immigration.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states-2022
    Upon taking office, the Trump administration slowed refugee case processing and decreased admissions from 11 “high-risk” countries for a time, later requiring additional screening. Refugee admissions from these mostly Muslim countries—Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—accounted for 43 percent of all refugee resettlement in FY 2017, but fell to 3 percent in FY 2018, before rising to 6 percent in FY 2019 and 14 percent in FY 2020

    hmm I wonder if there might be a backlog of people working it's way through the system from previous bad decisions.
    The geographic origins of admitted refugees have changed considerably over time (see Figure 2). In the first eight months of FY 2023, 43 percent of admitted refugees were from Africa, 28 percent from the Middle East and South Asia, 13 percent from East Asia, 11 percent from Latin America and the Caribbean, and 4 percent from Europe and Central Asia. In comparison, the leading origins of resettled refugees in FY 2012 was the Middle East and South Asia (52 percent), followed by East Asia (25 percent), Africa (18 percent), Latin America and the Caribbean (4 percent), and Europe and Central Asia (2 percent).

    Refugee flows depend on A. ability of refugees to get here B. how fucked various places are. They will rise and fall independent of anything Congress or the Executive does on immigration.

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 4
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states-2022
    Upon taking office, the Trump administration slowed refugee case processing and decreased admissions from 11 “high-risk” countries for a time, later requiring additional screening. Refugee admissions from these mostly Muslim countries—Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, North Korea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—accounted for 43 percent of all refugee resettlement in FY 2017, but fell to 3 percent in FY 2018, before rising to 6 percent in FY 2019 and 14 percent in FY 2020

    hmm I wonder if there might be a backlog of people working it's way through the system from previous bad decisions.
    The geographic origins of admitted refugees have changed considerably over time (see Figure 2). In the first eight months of FY 2023, 43 percent of admitted refugees were from Africa, 28 percent from the Middle East and South Asia, 13 percent from East Asia, 11 percent from Latin America and the Caribbean, and 4 percent from Europe and Central Asia. In comparison, the leading origins of resettled refugees in FY 2012 was the Middle East and South Asia (52 percent), followed by East Asia (25 percent), Africa (18 percent), Latin America and the Caribbean (4 percent), and Europe and Central Asia (2 percent).

    Refugee flows depend on A. ability of refugees to get here B. how fucked various places are. They will rise and fall independent of anything Congress or the Executive does on immigration.

    While related and we often use them interchangeably refugees and asylum seekers are different groups in the reporting. The key differences is that refugees(outside of stuff like the Afghan fiasco) are generally pre-cleared outside of the US. Basically all the determinations on do they qualify etc are already done by the time they reach the US. While there are follow up actions(status renewal, conversion to permanent resident etc.), but excluding direct interactions like resettlement support and such them entering the US is by that point just like anyone else arriving with a passport/visa at the airport.

    Additionally, there is a set number of refugees admitted every year.

    uoy7y521j00y.png

    Also looking at the refugee list vs the composition of asylum seekers, I'm not sure the two actions are related. Trump slashing of the refugee caps was not good, but very few refugees come from Latin America.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    Funny part is, there are a LOT of things we could do to vastly improve immigration that wouldn't be hard at all. Some of them wouldn't even be that controversial to the average worker.

    Main one would be to clean up and massively expand worker visas. Broadly blast the number of worker visas wide open, but make it much more heavily managed by the government and require that they verify payrates (or set them, with the idea that they are at or above the current average pay level for that position). You want to hire an agri worker from Mexico/CA? Sure, but you have to go via the .gov, you have to pay the worker more than the average rate (possibly exceptions/review to ensure it doesn't artificially spiral payrates). Reopening a lot of the ability for seasonal migrants to cross the border and work more or less freely would help deal with a lot of problems on BOTH sides.

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    So an article I was reading today mentioned that the last major legislative immigration bill was the 1990 Immigration Act.

    So did some reading on it because as I've said before, I think a lot of the rhetoric around immigration is divorced from the reality. Like for example^ there isn't a cap on agricultural worker visas.

    First thing the bill did was set the annual cap on immigration to 675k(From 270k)

    Second it made family sponsored visas, which reserved 480k visa for family reunification based on a preference scale(spoilered). Note there is no cap on immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, defined as spouses, parents, and unmarried minor children (under age 21). Technically 254k of the 480k are reserved for them, but if that 254k limit is hit it isn't a cap.
    First: (F1) Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400 plus any numbers not required for fourth preference.

    Second: Spouses and Children, and Unmarried Sons and Daughters of Permanent Residents: 114,200, plus the number (if any) by which the worldwide family preference level exceeds 226,000, plus any unused first preference numbers:

    A. (F2A) Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: 77% of the overall second preference limitation, of which 75% are exempt from the per-country limit;

    B. (F2B) Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: 23% of the overall second preference limitation.

    Third: (F3) Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: 23,400, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences.

    Fourth: (F4) Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: 65,000, plus any numbers not required by first three preferences.

    And then employment based visas(140k), again based on a preference system
    EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCES

    First: Priority Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required for fourth and fifth preferences.

    Second: Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability: 28.6% of the worldwide employment-based preference level, plus any numbers not required by first preference.

    Third: Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers: 28.6% of the worldwide level, plus any numbers not required by first and second preferences, not more than 10,000 of which to "*Other Workers".

    Fourth: Certain Special Immigrants: 7.1% of the worldwide level.

    Fifth: Employment Creation: 7.1% of the worldwide level, of which 32% are reserved as follows: 20% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in a rural area; 10% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in a high unemployment area; and 2% reserved for qualified immigrants who invest in infrastructure projects. The remaining 68% are unreserved and are allotted for all other qualified immigrants.

    Both of these are capped so no single country can qualify for more than 7% of a given category. This means that every country has a maximum number of 44,100 family-based immigrants and 14,700 employment-based immigrants for each fiscal year.

    And 55k Diversity Visas from underrepresented countries (those with fewer than 50,000 immigrants admissions over the preceding five years). There is a lottery system, that is also regional. Applicants are assigned numbers sequentially in each region and if your number is below the selected number you can apply for a visa(the numbers are >55k because the state department over books just like airlines)

    Immigration chart:
    tcbu9hz50gci.png

    It created Temporary Protected Status, so that people fleeing an ongoing war, a natural disaster or "extraordinary and tempory" conditions can stay in the US(Note this doesn't convey residency status just that you don't have to leave the US). Currently TPS covers Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen. One oddity of TPS is that you have to be in the US at the time it is declared to qualify and maintained it continuously since a certain date(This date is sometime moved up to permit additional people to apply for TPS). The other is "Temporary" is a bit of a stretch at this point. Honduras and Nicaragua are on the list because of Hurricane Mitch, which made landfall October 22nd 1998. El Salvador's TPS was due to earthquakes in 2001.

    It also, hired more CBP agents, removed 'suspected homosexual" from the medical exclusions list, did some stuff with longshore work, and added new professions to the the work visa list, and some other somewhat minor things.


    Then their are the H-visas Which are the non-resident work visas, with different caps set by congress.


    H1-B visas, High skilled workers 65k annual cap, good for 3 years extendable to 6. After 6 years must leave the US for 12 months before able to reapply as an H1b. If they apply for permanent residency before their 5th anniversary, they can renew the H1B annually until a decision has been made on that.

    H1-B1- the same but explicitly for Chile(1400) or Singapore(5400)

    E3, Similar but for Australians. 10,500 cap. Spouse automatically authorized to work, no limit on number of renewals

    H2-A, temporary agricultural workers no cap, After 3 years must leave the US for 3 months before able to reapply., can leave the US for 30 days and visa is automatically reissued In 2020 214k were granted. Limited to a list of countries, but that list is pretty massive.
    Andorra The Kingdom of Eswatini Madagascar Saint Lucia
    Argentina Fiji Malta San Marino
    Australia Finland Mauritius Serbia
    Austria France Mexico Singapore
    Barbados Germany Monaco Slovakia
    Belgium Greece Mongolia* Slovenia
    Bolivia Grenada Montenegro Solomon Islands
    Bosnia and Herzegovina Guatemala Mozambique South Africa
    Brazil Haiti Nauru South Korea
    Brunei Honduras The Netherlands Spain
    Bulgaria Hungary New Zealand St. Vincent and the Grenadines
    Canada Iceland Nicaragua Sweden
    Chile Ireland North Macedonia Switzerland
    Colombia Israel Norway Taiwan***
    Costa Rica Italy Panama Thailand
    Croatia Jamaica Papua New Guinea Timor-Leste
    Republic of Cyprus Japan Paraguay** Turkey
    Czech Republic Kiribati Peru Tuvalu
    Denmark Latvia The Philippines* Ukraine
    Dominican Republic Liechtenstein Poland United Kingdom
    Ecuador Lithuania Portugal Uruguay
    El Salvador Luxembourg Romania Vanuatu
    Estonia

    H2-B, temporary nonagricultural workers 66k per year, good for 3 years. After 3 years must leave the US for 3 months before able to reapply.

    H3, training visa. Available for people seeking training(other than graduate medical training) not available in their country or explicitly training in special education.

    H4- For family of H visa holders.


    For as much as 'congress needs to act' and as far as resourcing immigration courts that is true. It really doesn't strike me as a system that is structurally all that flawed. Maybe you adjust the 7% rule a bit, given that 40% of the world lives in China+India. Adjust some numbers her and there but ultimately the US is grant 1 million permanent residence visas a year. [url="chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/2023_0818_plcy_lawful_permanent_residents_fy2022_0.pdf"]Source[/url], the foreign born percentage of the US is higher even than during the Angel/Ellis island days.

    rgzlm5t8eovw.png

    3n2tpoit1l8z.png

    It's a system that, if you look at the southern border is apparently coming apart at the seams but as a system of laws on immigration it doesn't seem all that broken. I don't see how, outside of resources to lower the backlog, there is a legislatorial fix for several million people willing to violate the laws said legislature passes to enter the US. Some stuff around the fringes with trying to improve conditions in the countries of origin, but it's not like there is any quick and certain fixes to nation building.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited June 5
    tinwhiskers you just said the problem isn't resources then named a problem that requires more resources at the end of the post. And again is *isn't* several million people, you're double and triple and quadruple counting. Last year there were 2.5 million "enforcement encounters".. Not people. "encounters". Each time someone is turned away, do you think they're gonna give up and go away or are they going to try again?

    Then they get caught, and come again. Or come back with their passport, because some of these are gonna be "oops I left my documents at home." Not exactly the paragon of law breaking, that.

    Meanwhile, for comparison

    363million people traveled to the US last year. Again duplicates will happen here.

    Also from Biden's EO
    At the end of Fiscal Year 2023, there were over 2.4 million cases pending in the immigration courts.

    This does not scream "system has enough resources" to me.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    MillMill Registered User regular
    Yeah, pretty much looking at the data.

    Getting more personnel in place to clear the backlog and ensure people don't get trapped in bureaucratic limbo would likely really help, just on it's own. That means Congress needs to approve issue enough funds, that an adequate number of people can be hired for staffing all the permanent stuff. Also need funds to temporarily hire people to quickly get through the backlog and depending on how certain issues go, might have to hire some of that temporary stuff on full time. If the system works at a certain speed, it makes the legal channels at least appealing. I'd argue right now, some are avoiding them because bureaucratic limbo can absolutely fuck people over.

    Then there is a need to help Mexico deal with it's cartel problem. Part of that is those fuckers are motivated by money and the question isn't going to be will they attempt to assert influence on the US side of the border, it's going to be when they attempt to do that because they desire to squeeze more profit out of more people. Even if you can scare those fuckers shitless to the point they never try. It's a huge problem that they exert the control they do because that means they can do shit to fuck with legal avenues of immigration. Essentially, make it so that refugees don't feel safe going towards legal points of entry because the cartels with attack them. Again, the cartels want lets of people crossing the border illegally because that is going to bog down resources aimed at dealing with smuggling and they know that people who haven't spend time learning how to be discrete will do a good job of bogging those resources down.

    There is the immigration surge that is being driven by both climate change and violence perpetuated by organized crime. If the US could do something about one or both, that would likely go a decent way towards driven down the number of people that want to relocate. It also would make illegal means of immigration less appealing. When someone is desperate, they are less likely to give a shit about things like laws and when you have shit that pretty much severely hoses one's ability to stay safe and alive in their current location, it's hard to fault them for entering the US illegally. Problem is both of these issues are complex and there is only one where you might able to make the case that issues in the US are contributing 40% or greater to it. That would be the organized crime aspect, since they benefit greatly from the US black market both in terms of getting funds to fight the governments south of the US border and easily getting hold of fire power to do so. That said, even on this one, it's worth bearing in mind that assholes from outside the US, Central America and South America are a factor.

    I'd have to look at the numbers for other things more closely because some caps probably should be raised and some qualifying guidelines should be adjusted. I've seen it mentioned fairly often that the refugee stuff needs language to ensure that climate refugees aren't left high and dry and that's not just a US problem. Currently, there are a ton of concerns that the language for this stuff makes it easy for any country to look at the application from a clime change refugee and tell them they don't qualify because they don't check enough of the required boxes.

    I would like to see work visas revisited and make it so that employers have to pay higher than minimum wage and in some cases higher than the market rate. If you can't find people to do the work, you can't argue that minimum wage is acceptable. There is also the issue where a ton of tech companies are just abusing the system to fuck labor over, by finding people that are willing to work below the market rate in the US because it either gets their foot in the door to possible make a stab at US citizenship or long term residency, or at the very least make significantly more money than they would at home if they don't have any interest in ultimately living in the US long term. This also means needing to redo how we approach enforcement in regards to people that are hired on the table, given that often times many of them are victims and the current system rewards shitty employers for hiring under the table. Instead, enforcement should focus on arresting and prosecuting employers, while not doing anything about the people that are hired under the table. Make it so that employers can't just rationalize as the cost of business. Have fines that eat a percentage of the company's revenue when they get caught and a system where management, include the CEOs and owners, do have to fear getting jail time. I know some businesses are already pushing for fixes to immigration, but I know there are a shit ton of assholes that love to push that we need to be tougher on undocumented immigrants because they like a system where they can hire people under the table and then use that system to force them to work in unsafe conditions for nonexistent wages. Let's be real, it likely isn't keeping things cheap for the US consumers because these fuckers want all the money, so they sure as fuck aren't going to pass off the saving they acquired by breaking the law.

    Finally, if we had a functional Congress, they could look into better funding things so that localities could better deal with influxes of people. I'd argue that we have a shit ton of localities are are poorly equipped to deal with sudden surges in population. Some of that is a lack of housing and some of it is that the services they are suppose to be offering to their residents, are barely getting enough funding to be functional.

  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited June 6
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    And again is *isn't* several million people, you're double and triple and quadruple counting. Last year there were 2.5 million "enforcement encounters".. Not people. "encounters". Each time someone is turned away, do you think they're gonna give up and go away or are they going to try again?

    Then they get caught, and come again. Or come back with their passport, because some of these are gonna be "oops I left my documents at home." Not exactly the paragon of law breaking, that.

    Meanwhile, for comparison

    363million people traveled to the US last year. Again duplicates will happen here.


    @Phoenix-D

    That there are 10+ million illegal immigrants in the US is prima facie evidence there are several million people willing to violate US law to enter the US. But to detail your point a bit more.


    First "Enforcement encounters" aren't "oops forgot my paperwork". The CBP Glossary
    Enforcement Encounter: A United States Border Patrol (USBP) encounter, Office of Field Operations (OFO) encounter with a disposition other than those defined as administrative encounters (see administrative encounter), or an encounter resulting in expulsion pursuant to the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Title 42 public health order.

    Administrative Encounter: An encounter of an inadmissible noncitizen in which removal proceedings are not considered, including certain withdrawn applications for admission in cases prior to FY 2024 in which expedited removal or other immigration proceedings were not considered, foreign crew members without entry visas who are required to remain aboard their ships, and persons paroled into the United States and released from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Field Operations (OFO) custody without being placed into removal proceedings.

    They aren't implementing expedited removal proceedings for forgetting a passport, especially at a land border where you don't even need a ticket to depart. These aren't people turned away, they are people apprehended.

    Second, just as a matter of good faith, if you are insisting on worrying about double counts the people who succeed should be accounted for as well. And given that there are 10.5m undocumented immigrants in the US, and there is both inflow and outflow, the CBP isn't exactly putting up Hasek in '98 numbers.

    Third, They collect data on this Page 12

    bwpawm20tpae.png


    ~935k unique people, excluding anyone from the 225k encounters under the age of 14. There are also 700k visa overstays annuallywhich is a major source of undocumented immigrants There are also another 200k encounters on the Northern land border, and 550k that are neither land border. Which presumably includes maritime stuff like the 135k air and sea encounters in the South East in 2022

    And all of these are annual rates. Unless you are contending there is a static pool of people who just keep trying year after year without success(and again ignoring the 10+m who have succeeded) there are in fact several million people who have, are attempting to, or will attempt unlawful entry into the US.

    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    tinwhiskers you just said the problem isn't resources then named a problem that requires more resources at the end of the post.
    Also from Biden's EO
    At the end of Fiscal Year 2023, there were over 2.4 million cases pending in the immigration courts.

    This does not scream "system has enough resources" to me.
    For as much as 'congress needs to act' and as far as resourcing immigration courts that is true. It really doesn't strike me as a system that is structurally all that flawed.
    I don't see how, outside of resources to lower the backlog, there is a legislatorial fix for several million people willing to violate the laws said legislature passes to enter the US
    What did I say?


    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Each time someone is turned away, do you think they're gonna give up and go away or are they going to try again?

    But this^ was part of my point. Say we suddenly have infinite immigration judges. Asylum claim approval rate is a bit below 40%. So for every million people who apply, 600k are rejected. Are they going to just accept that judgement and go away or try again?
    Ignoring the assylum seekers, if people who are apprehended and deported will just try again, how does more resources effect that situation? Great we are now giving the Dept of Immigration the Dept of Defense budget. Every case is processed the same day, the people who don't meet the requirements are retuned the following afternoon. How does that actually effect the core dynamic.

    The US wants X people in every year, most of whom are relatives of current residents/citizens. 50X people want to enter the US, and some fraction of those say 1-4X are going to attempt to bypass the laws governing who comes in, and will keep trying after they are caught and deported. 10,000 more judges doesn't solve that.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Trump literally rode to power by making populist concerns about immigration the core of his campaign. I hope nobody has forgotten in the almost decade since that was his core plank and grievance.

    This is still a big factor in the unengaged support he still has. And a huge weakness in that he had his shot for four years and didn't 'solve' the problem. Then refused and spiked a deal that would supposedly address many of those problems.

    Attacking that big glaring vulnerability is just smart politics when for whatever stupid reason Convicted Felon vs not the worst President are polling neck and neck.

    It is not “attacking” Trump in any meaningful way by carrying out and institutionalizing his previous policy maneuvers

    All that tells me is you want Trump policies, gilded with a fetid leafing of Democratic respectability, material similarity be damned.

    @Lanz

    Nobody here wants any Trump policies and Trump is a piece of shit.

    But his speaking to immigration being broken (it is, we all agree even not how it is) and needing to be fixed is a resounding message that a whole lot of voters do prioritize.

    Unfortunately what people want isn't open frictionless borders and they want security, even the groups you think would be most wary of that.

    So yeah embracing the things people wanted in Trump policies while discarding the pointless cruelty in favor of good implementation is literally the definition of good policy.

    Problem is that people don't have the foggiest idea what they want by way of a coherent policy goes and half their concerns are just Fox fuelled racist delusions that roving bands of immigrants are going to murder them the second they step out of their gated community. It's all 'making sure the right people get hurt' and 'wanting people to do it the right way'. What even vaguely good stuff are you going to distil from Trump's word salad when the people who liked what he was saying were wearing 'Fuck off, we're full.' shirts?

    And stopping asylum requests once there's 2,500 a day and only re-allowing them once the number drops to 1,500 (a historical average that might never be returned to) is pretty damn close to 'fuck off, we're full'.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    edited June 6
    i don't think you are really considering the things you think you are. We have numerous occasions of USC's both detained for excessive period of time, as well as actually deported despite being citizens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_the_United_States Part of the problem here is the data on this is inredibly incomplete is because ICE is ICE.

    Further, even ignoring immigrations, normal both immigrant and non-immigrant visas are INCREDIBLY impacted by the fact that ICE, Border Patrol, USCIS, etc agents all basially have god powers over immigration. For example, for someone coming into the US on a tourist visa, they have to apply for the visa, which includes a number of checks, no the least including an interview with an agent of USCIS who can deny them for any reason, and doesn't have to provide or justify that reason. Further, even if a tourist or IMMIGRANT visa is approved, every time you cross the border, you are still required to submit to CBP (obviously) and they can deny you for ANY reason. Even if 90% or more of CBP/USCIS is honest/etc, it still leaves that "rotten apple spoiles the barrel" feeling.

    EDIT: This is actually worsened by transit flights. In a lot of countries, if you are just transitting through, you don't have to do anything special, because you can't leave the airport w/o hitting immigraction. In the US, despite most airports funnelling you through immigration first, to get a transit visa, you have to pass all the same requirements (and COSTS) as tourist visa)

    Hydropolo on
  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Hydropolo wrote: »
    i don't think you are really considering the things you think you are. We have numerous occasions of USC's both detained for excessive period of time, as well as actually deported despite being citizens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Americans_from_the_United_States Part of the problem here is the data on this is inredibly incomplete is because ICE is ICE.

    Further, even ignoring immigrations, normal both immigrant and non-immigrant visas are INCREDIBLY impacted by the fact that ICE, Border Patrol, USCIS, etc agents all basially have god powers over immigration. For example, for someone coming into the US on a tourist visa, they have to apply for the visa, which includes a number of checks, no the least including an interview with an agent of USCIS who can deny them for any reason, and doesn't have to provide or justify that reason. Further, even if a tourist or IMMIGRANT visa is approved, every time you cross the border, you are still required to submit to CBP (obviously) and they can deny you for ANY reason. Even if 90% or more of CBP/USCIS is honest/etc, it still leaves that "rotten apple spoiles the barrel" feeling.

    EDIT: This is actually worsened by transit flights. In a lot of countries, if you are just transitting through, you don't have to do anything special, because you can't leave the airport w/o hitting immigraction. In the US, despite most airports funnelling you through immigration first, to get a transit visa, you have to pass all the same requirements (and COSTS) as tourist visa)

    I can testify to the US visa system being poop from a butt even if you're just looking to spend a week in Disney World or something. Online application is freaking long and looks like it hasn't been updated in a decade, the payment system is crap too, and the visa fee (which again, is just for the tourist visa is fairly significant). Then there's the whole thing where getting the visa can be straight up luck of the draw that the person doing the interview might decide they don't like you. The better half had no issues, a family friend did the interview in Poland and was grilled and basically told to fuck off for reasons. Technically because there was no proof that she had assets in her home country that would ensure she wouldn't try to stay in the USA... other than the house and business that she owned and ran.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Trump literally rode to power by making populist concerns about immigration the core of his campaign. I hope nobody has forgotten in the almost decade since that was his core plank and grievance.

    This is still a big factor in the unengaged support he still has. And a huge weakness in that he had his shot for four years and didn't 'solve' the problem. Then refused and spiked a deal that would supposedly address many of those problems.

    Attacking that big glaring vulnerability is just smart politics when for whatever stupid reason Convicted Felon vs not the worst President are polling neck and neck.

    It is not “attacking” Trump in any meaningful way by carrying out and institutionalizing his previous policy maneuvers

    All that tells me is you want Trump policies, gilded with a fetid leafing of Democratic respectability, material similarity be damned.

    @Lanz

    Nobody here wants any Trump policies and Trump is a piece of shit.

    But his speaking to immigration being broken (it is, we all agree even not how it is) and needing to be fixed is a resounding message that a whole lot of voters do prioritize.

    Unfortunately what people want isn't open frictionless borders and they want security, even the groups you think would be most wary of that.

    So yeah embracing the things people wanted in Trump policies while discarding the pointless cruelty in favor of good implementation is literally the definition of good policy.

    Problem is that people don't have the foggiest idea what they want by way of a coherent policy goes and half their concerns are just Fox fuelled racist delusions that roving bands of immigrants are going to murder them the second they step out of their gated community. It's all 'making sure the right people get hurt' and 'wanting people to do it the right way'. What even vaguely good stuff are you going to distil from Trump's word salad when the people who liked what he was saying were wearing 'Fuck off, we're full.' shirts?

    And stopping asylum requests once there's 2,500 a day and only re-allowing them once the number drops to 1,500 (a historical average that might never be returned to) is pretty damn close to 'fuck off, we're full'.

    Fortunately there are a bunch of exceptions but it's very much in "well at least the turd is only smoking and not on fire?" territory.

  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    I imagine Lanz would like if any future quotes of my post remove the batsignal from the quote chain. That was just because the conversation moved to the new thread.

  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited June 6
    Al Jazeera shares harsh words from immigration advocates about Biden's new executive order and related changes to policy.
    During a news conference on Thursday, Azadeh Erfani, a senior policy analyst at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said Biden’s recent executive order violates both US and international law because it will send people with viable asylum claims back to harm.

    “Any person, including families with children, who seeks asylum between US ports of entry” will be affected by the new regulations, Erfani said.

    “This applies right now — in the middle of a global displacement crisis, the worst we’ve seen since World War II — and will decimate asylum access in the foreseeable future.”
    The executive order also coincides with a new rule from the Department of Homeland Security and the US Attorney General that also tightens asylum procedures.

    The new rule implements three changes to existing asylum policy. Crucially, it scraps a requirement that US immigration officers must inform people of their right to seek asylum and ask whether they fear persecution, according to a fact sheet prepared by the American Immigration Council.

    Instead, asylum seekers now need to express a fear of persecution themselves or inform US officers that they want to seek asylum, something advocates refer to as the “shout test”.

    Only then would they get a “credible fear interview”, where asylum applicants are expected to demonstrate a need for protection.

    The Biden administration’s new rule also increases the threshold that applicants need to meet during the interview to be eligible for asylum.

    “As of this week, the Biden administration has allowed for these interviews to happen within as little as four hours of peoples’ entry [to the US], while raising the standard,” said Erfani at the National Immigrant Justice Center.

    The purpose, Erfani said, is “for people to fail these screenings and get deported as fast as possible”.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Biden doing something good WRT immigration for a change
    The Biden administration is taking executive action to protect undocumented spouses of American citizens — a move that would shield about 500,000 immigrants from deportation.

    The White House announced the election-year policy Tuesday, framing it as “new action to keep families together.” NBC News reported that an executive action protecting the spouses was likely to be announced soon, after urging from immigration advocates and Democratic lawmakers and as President Joe Biden courts Latino voters in crucial battleground states.
    The action aims to provide a "significant benefit to the country" by allowing non-citizens who have been in the country for at least 10 years and are married to a U.S. citizen, and their children, to apply for permanent residence without leaving the country.

    The statement added that the spouses eligible to apply for this have been in the U.S. for 23 years on average.

    The program would also make it easier for some undocumented immigrants to get a green card and a path to U.S. citizenship.

  • Options
    MillMill Registered User regular
    The right of course is having a hissy fit over. So figure those racist fucking monsters will file suit against it. No doubt the fuckers will fish for that one asshole in Texas.

    Though with luck, that might be a move that will blow up in their fucking faces and just turn a large swath of the public against the right on immigration matters.

  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    The right of course is having a hissy fit over. So figure those racist fucking monsters will file suit against it. No doubt the fuckers will fish for that one asshole in Texas.

    Though with luck, that might be a move that will blow up in their fucking faces and just turn a large swath of the public against the right on immigration matters.

    This seems like not only good compassionate immigration policy, but a smart move to get the attention of the American Citizen spouses and (likely in many cases) children and extended family that the Republicans are coming for their families.

    It draws a stark contrast between Biden / Democratic immigration policies and Trump / Republican policies (especially since Republicans are likely to scream about it in the worst way) and serves as a reminder what those half million possible voters and the people in their communities can expect.

Sign In or Register to comment.