How many more illegal migrants should we allow in through the border?

[Zyphlin]

We shouldn't “allow” any illegal ones through the border. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal in a reasonable way with those that manage to do so, but we shouldn't outwardly “allow” for it.

I stand by my stance I’ve had for a while. Asylum laws should be changed where you have to request it at an actual point of entry, an embassy, or via some automated process while in another country (if you want to go the app route). Entering illegally and THEN claiming asylum should be disallowed. If you legitimately wish to claim it then come in through one of the many different legal entry points and claim it.

I'd even be fine, in conjunction with that, creating a handful of entry points dedicated solely to asylum seekers and increase staffing there if judges to quicken adjudication of the matter.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Zero. Everyone in this country should be here legally, and if they are not here legally, then I want them to be as fearful as they are in New Zealand: Link

If they are here legally, then they should be as miserable as the rest of us.

So let's go back to the way we did immigration back in the Ellis Island days. Show up unannounced. Write your name down, take a TB test, and you are on your way, LEGALLY, in a matter of hours, not decades.

You with me?

 

[Hello My Son]

Biden gave the GOP their bill to approve-----they turned it down. Case closed.

BTW----they are refugees

The bill that also funded the Ukraine-Russian war?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

So let's go back to the way we did immigration back in the Ellis Island days. Show up unannounced. Write your name down, take a TB test, and you are on your way, LEGALLY, in a matter of hours, not decades.

You with me?

If you begin a sentence with "So", you are about to write something stupid. Thank you for further validating that axiom.

 

[NolanVoyd]

If you begin a sentence with "So", you are about to write something stupid. Thank you for further validating that axiom.

So.... absolutely nothing about what I said?

Ok. Run away then.

 

[tshade]

The bill that also funded the Ukraine-Russian war?

support for UKr........yes

 

[AliHajiSheik]

So.... absolutely nothing about what I said?

Ok. Run away then.

I'm still here and you are still posting stupid stuff.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I'm still here and you are still posting stupid stuff.

That is your response?

"You are posting stupid stuff"??????

Lol.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

That is your response?

"You are posting stupid stuff"??????

Lol.

Boring. Good Day to you.

 

[Hello My Son]

support for UKr........yes

Why not just do separate bills for each of them given that they're completely unrelated issues? If the primary goal is to get something passed on a bipartisan level, what's the point of dousing it in political gasoline and setting it on fire?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Boring. Good Day to you.

Run away then.......don't actually adress what I said.

 

[tshade]

Why not just do separate bills for each of them given that they're completely unrelated issues? If the primary goal is to get something passed on a bipartisan level, what's the point of dousing it in political gasoline and setting it on fire?

agree---but that is not reality at the time==============the GOP should have supported the immig. bill & Ukr. help

 

[post]

We shouldn't “allow” any illegal ones through the border. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal in a reasonable way with those that manage to do so, but we shouldn't outwardly “allow” for it.

I stand by my stance I’ve had for a while. Asylum laws should be changed where you have to request it at an actual point of entry, an embassy, or via some automated process while in another country (if you want to go the app route). Entering illegally and THEN claiming asylum should be disallowed. If you legitimately wish to claim it then come in through one of the many different legal entry points and claim it.

I'd even be fine, in conjunction with that, creating a handful of entry points dedicated solely to asylum seekers and increase staffing there if judges to quicken adjudication of the matter.

One of the biggest problems currently is the lack of available legal representation. Your proposal would only aggravate that further.
I doubt there is political will to change the law to provide U.S. government paid legal representatives. Perhaps the strained pro bono resources
could be marshaled to develop a triage system in which all cases at least be evaluated and then prioritized by those deemed most likely to succeed when plead to an increased number of immigration judges being assigned pro bono representation?

https://www.americanbar.org › groups › public_interest › immigration › generating_justice_blog › on-the-front-lines-of-immigration-at-the-border

On the Front Lines of Immigration at the Border: Reflections on Pro ...​

Sep 21, 2022Depending on the case, someone in the immigration system is between 2x and 5x more likely to receive the relief they were requesting when represented by a lawyer than for those that were unrepresented. All of this together reinforced the importance of the work being done by

 

[j brown's body]

Why not just do separate bills for each of them given that they're completely unrelated issues? If the primary goal is to get something passed on a bipartisan level, what's the point of dousing it in political gasoline and setting it on fire?

The combined bill leaned heavily to immigration policies supported by Republicans and left out immigration policies the Democrats like because they were getting the Ukraine funding they want (and many Republicans want too, btw). In other words the GOP held the funding hostage in exchange for immigration policies they want. Then Trump had them sink the bill.

Without holding Ukraine funding hostage, a stand alone immigration bill would thus include policies the Democrats want. Since the GOP already sunk a bill that favored them, it seems likely they would sink a stand alone bill that includes Dem policies even faster.

 

[Hello My Son]

agree---but that is not reality at the time==============the GOP should have supported the immig. bill & Ukr. help

Well, it's also not reality to expect the GOP to support Ukraine funding and bipartisan immigration reform in the same bill. That's predictable enough that Democrats in power should (and do) know it.

So if they know that and they choose to sabotage their own efforts just so they can have trash talk material (of which they already have plenty enough to get the job done) against the GOP, then one can only conclude that solving the immigration problem is definitively not their primary motivation.

It's perfectly possible and reasonable for Democrats to strip down the bill to a singular issue and then vote to pass it, putting the onus on the GOP to finish the job and makes them look very bad if they don't. But anchoring it to Ukraine simply gives the GOP an opt-out and a talking point that the Democrats don't really want to solve immigration, because if they did, they wouldn't pair it up with funding another country's war.

 

[j brown's body]

We shouldn't “allow” any illegal ones through the border. That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal in a reasonable way with those that manage to do so, but we shouldn't outwardly “allow” for it.

I stand by my stance I’ve had for a while. Asylum laws should be changed where you have to request it at an actual point of entry, an embassy, or via some automated process while in another country (if you want to go the app route). Entering illegally and THEN claiming asylum should be disallowed. If you legitimately wish to claim it then come in through one of the many different legal entry points and claim it.

I'd even be fine, in conjunction with that, creating a handful of entry points dedicated solely to asylum seekers and increase staffing there if judges to quicken adjudication of the matter.

You want to make it harder for people to come here legally through the asylum process. That could lead to an increase in illegal immigration.

 

[Hello My Son]

The combined bill leaned heavily to immigration policies supported by Republicans and left out immigration policies the Democrats like because they were getting the Ukraine funding they want (and many Republicans want too, btw). In other words the GOP held the funding hostage in exchange for immigration policies they want. Then Trump had them sink the bill.

Without holding Ukraine funding hostage, a stand alone immigration bill would thus include policies the Democrats want. Since the GOP already sunk a bill that favored them, it seems likely they would sink a stand alone bill that includes Dem policies even faster.

That's the entire point. Get out of the crystal ball business and force the GOP to own their own decisions to vote against a standalone bill that's specifically (and only) about immigration reform. Adding anything else to it just gives them an easy excuse to opt-out.

 

[mrjurrs]

Legalize all immigration.

"illegal" immigration is a government-manufactured problem, and border controls are the government acting as arsonist fireman.

Also freedom of movement is considered a basic, foundational freedom if one considers oneself an actual libertarian.

The libertarians on here are primarily just embarrassed to admit they are Republicans.

 

[j brown's body]

Well, it's also not reality to expect the GOP to support Ukraine funding and bipartisan immigration reform in the same bill. That's predictable enough that Democrats in power should (and do) know it.

So if they know that and they choose to sabotage their own efforts just so they can have trash talk material (of which they already have plenty enough to get the job done) against the GOP, then one can only conclude that solving the immigration problem is definitively not their primary motivation.

It's perfectly possible and reasonable for Democrats to strip down the bill to a singular issue and then vote to pass it, putting the onus on the GOP to finish the job and makes them look very bad if they don't. But anchoring it to Ukraine simply gives the GOP an opt-out and a talking point that the Democrats don't really want to solve immigration, because if they did, they wouldn't pair it up with funding another country's war.

The GOP had a very good reason for supporting a Ukraine funding bill that included immigration reform because it enabled them to hold the funding hostage to get immigration policies they like.

"Congressional Republicans thought they had set a clever trap for Democrats that would accomplish complementary political and policy goals.

Their idea was to tie approval of military assistance to Ukraine to tough border security demands that Democrats would never accept, allowing Republicans to block the money for Kyiv that many of them oppose while simultaneously enabling them to pound Democrats for refusing to halt a surge of migrants at the border. It was to be a win-win headed into November’s elections.

Gifted article

 

[mrjurrs]

We should admit everyone that comes to our borders on a conditional basis.

But here's the part anti-immigration folks don't like to hear. Not everyone wants to come to America. People generally leave their homes because they are desperate, not because they want to come to America. Why are people surprised when immigrants are flocking to the worlds greatest economy when the economies of their home country has been disabled?

 

[noonereal]

1. Do we?
2. Only if we accept everyone.

What has that to do with anything we're discussing?

Listen, you have a good day. I don't find your posts completely coherent so I am gonna move on.
Peace

 

[noonereal]

It absolutely is! We need a growing population, lest our economy become as stagnant as those of Europe. We could and should also try to increase fertility rates through pro-natalist policies, so that we have more population growth from homegrown Americans. But let's be realistic: At best those policies will have a small effect on fertility rates, many years later. Immigration is the big policy dial that we can turn up or turn down to regulate the size of our population.


I know this wasn't asked of me, but I'm going to answer it anyway since it's one of my favorite topics. IMO, we should be growing our population by about 1% per year through net immigration (and ideally about 1.5-2.0% including net immigration and net births). This would mean 3.3 million green cards per year, roughly triple the current amount. I propose a breakdown like this:

• 500K immediate family green cards.
• 100K refugees/asylees, with refugees preferred over asylees. (Basically don't let anyone claim asylum except Cubans, Haitians, and people who were already legally here when their asylum need arose).
• 500K high school graduate workers, and their families.
• 2.2M college graduate workers, and their families.

In addition to these top-line numbers, I propose the following changes:

• Stop accepting applications for extended family green cards, and clear the backlog of these by allowing an addition 300K extended family green cards until the backlog is cleared. (Deduct these from the worker green cards.)
• Eliminate the 7% per-country cap, which discriminates against high-volume countries like Mexico and India.
• Eliminate the diversity lottery, which previously awarded 40K green cards to random people. Instead, just commit to accepting at least the 200 best applicants from each of the 200 countries through any of the four channels above. That will give us some diversity while still being mostly meritocratic.
• Offer some regional green cards, where college graduate workers are assigned to a specific metro area to live and work. This could help revitalize some downscale regions of the country and give them a much-needed economic boost.

3 million is 50% more than any economists recomendation that i have read.
Consensus is that 2 million is optimal.
Let's keep in mind the law of diminishing returns.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Run away then.......don't actually adress what I said.

Still here. Post a question in a civil manner and I will response with a civil answer.

 

[j brown's body]

That's the entire point. Get out of the crystal ball business and force the GOP to own their own decisions to vote against a standalone bill that's specifically (and only) about immigration reform. Adding anything else to it just gives them an easy excuse to opt-out.

If they're not going to support a bill that they helped create, they certainly aren't going to support a bill the Dems create.

They are more than willing to argue that Trump alone can solve the problem and that an immigration reform bill is unnecessary.

 

[jaypatriot]

We we're supposed to be a government of laws NOT men. There need to be the same application of consequences for breaking our laws, regardless of which party is in control of our government.

We should allow enough migrants in who can be properly vetted and processed in an orderly manner using the resources we currently have to do so. Rushing through razor wire should not be a means by which asylum claims are forced to be heard.