In reply to: One thing is sure; we must stop doing immigration posted by shillelaghhugger
I don't know how exactly the US can do that, but having Mexico be a better filter would go a long way to "fixing" this issue.
I still wonder if it wasn't a mistake just annexing the entire thing when the US took Texas and California from them.
1. WHat is suggested - "Under Mr Biden’s rules, a fear of gang violence counts as a ground for being let in. Contrast that with Spain, which rejects this test even though it has a socialist prime minister." https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/01/25/how-the-border-could-cost-biden-the-election January 25 2024. I don't know what impact modifying asylum justifications would have but I imagine that eliminating this one would be powerful.
2. What is stated -
> We have a duty under law to admit asylum seekers. That said, if a law says you have to shoot every 2 year old born on February 19, 2022 in the head you probably should welch on the deal. Why? Doing so is manifestly unreasonable. Likewise, admitting millions of 'migrants' outside the legal immigration process while blaming this duty is manifestly unreasonable.
> Accordingly, we ought to simply close the border, partner with Mexico with monetary support for processing in Mexico. Embassy's outside our border can handle these claims and triage.
> related - I have not dove into this question, but it is relevant: what are Mexicos duties under the same asylum rules and why are non-Mexicans able to claim asylum with us rather than Mexico?
> It ought to be axiomatic that we have let in many people who have no bona fide claim to be here. Likewise, we have admitted, either via asylum claims or failure to police our border, a non-neglible population of bad people. THey may be around the margins, but their presence undermines the effort to admit the deserving because reasonable Americans can read the news and see migrants who attacked an NYC released without bail... grinning and flipping the bird to reporters. This is the "blue state" "blue city" stuff that has to stop if we want a groundswell of Americans to form and support handling this issue. https://nypost.com/2024/02/04/opinion/cop-beating-migrants-are-released-no-bail-after-attack-letters/
I am not unsympathetic. The 18th district police headquarters is .5 miles from my home. For 7 months it was so densely populated with Migrants that you could not enter the police station or walk on the sidewalk outside. We took action and brought food, clothes, and whatever we could to the migrants. I tried to assist by hiring anyone who could legally work and found no one could. WHen school started these parents were walking their kids all over our neighborhood to schools. These are good people, and they risked everything to be here.
Why are we admitting them half measure? Under Reagan we passed the IRCA. Once an individual's application for legalization under IRCA was approved, they were granted temporary resident status. This status allowed them to work legally in the United States. After a certain period in temporary status, individuals could then apply to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents (green card holders), which inherently included the ability to work.
It makes no sense that we are not just admitting migrants but then foreclosing their ability to legally work and then complaining about their drain on public resources.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-migrants-migrant-shelter-police-department-texas-governor/13903742/
"In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which, among other things, created a six-month waiting period before asylum seekers could legally receive a work permit."
It was thought that this would deter people from seeking Asylum.
I'm sympathetic to her overall view. Basically every time we tighten the system you get a brief decrease in migration, then the migrants look around and decide that's not worse than their home conditions.