Author Topic: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law  (Read 4264 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #60 on: April 17, 2019, 06:10:06 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17606
  • Tommy Points: 1157
Quote
Why is illegal immigration going up under Trump?

Because China and Russia are funding the caravans is my theory to destabilize us with a polarizing issue.   I can't prove that but I do think that someone is funding them.  You also have stuff this popping up which someone is paying for.  Churches also have a hand in this and were I president this would be grounds for them to lose their tax exempt status.

Quote
Central American migrants apprehended at the border claimed to have been encouraged by local newspaper advertisements that promised work opportunities and free assistance from the U.S. government.

“The whole word knows, they put it in the news. They tell us everywhere if you come to the United States, they’ll help you,” said a Honduran woman  apprehended at the southern border near the Rio Grande Valley. Speaking to CBS 4 news, a local news outlet, she and her family claimed they decided to make the trek to the U.S.-Mexico border after seeing several advertisements.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/04/16/newspaper-ads-migrants-us/


Quote
Pueblo Sin Fronteras and La Familia Latina Unida, its sponsor, are regularly listed together, including on the latter’s website and their respective social media pages.[3]

Emma Lozano, a left-wing activist and pastor at the Lincoln United Methodist Church in Chicago, Illinois, is listed as executive director of Pueblo Sin Fronteras. [4] Lozano is also president and founder of the Centro Sin Fronteras.[5] She is the sister of the late Rudy Lozano, a left-wing activist and community organizer in Chicago, Illinois.[6] Lozano is also a pastor at the Lincoln United Methodist Church in Chicago, along with her husband, the pastor Walter “Slim” Coleman. [7] [8]

Illegal immigration activist Roberto Corona is the founder of Pueblo Sin Frontera

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/pueblo-sin-fronteras/

Quote
Agree to disagree. I think you’re factually wrong, but from our former conversations it seems like Presidential contenders calling for the abolishment of ICE, Beto’s campaign calling for tearing down walls and providing assistance to the illegal immigrant caravan, the advocated policy of catch and release, widespread Democrat support for sanctuary cities, etc., are all slips of the tongue.

I think Roy is right about some of the candidates but I think the majority of the people in the country think it is a problem.   I think that this plays right into Pres. Trump's hands.  But a lot of said views happen on the coastal areas of the country like CA, NY, Mass, Wash, Oregon which are liberal strongholds.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 06:31:42 AM by Celtics4ever »

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #61 on: April 17, 2019, 10:59:32 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3970
  • Tommy Points: 665
I think the wave of immigration is a serious issue, but it is a humanitarian and administrative issue.  It should not be a military issue.   Asking for asylum is not a crime.   People who go to a legal point of entry and ask for asylum should not prejudicially be treated as criminals until they have actually committed a crime.   And even then, crimes need to be handled with appropriate measure and due process.

From 1903 to 1914 we processed just about a million new legal residents per year.   From 2001 to 2017 the rate has been about the same.

Why is it that we are unable to handle it now compared to back then?   We are a far, far wealthier country now than then.

That wave back then was followed by massive economic growth and world influence for the U.S. over the next several decades.  Despite much of the same sort of prejudicial, anti-immigrant propaganda being spewed by many at the time, it didn't destroy the country.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #62 on: April 17, 2019, 12:19:35 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4546
  • Tommy Points: 383
I think the wave of immigration is a serious issue, but it is a humanitarian and administrative issue.  It should not be a military issue.   Asking for asylum is not a crime.   People who go to a legal point of entry and ask for asylum should not prejudicially be treated as criminals until they have actually committed a crime.   And even then, crimes need to be handled with appropriate measure and due process.

From 1903 to 1914 we processed just about a million new legal residents per year.   From 2001 to 2017 the rate has been about the same.

Why is it that we are unable to handle it now compared to back then?   We are a far, far wealthier country now than then.

That wave back then was followed by massive economic growth and world influence for the U.S. over the next several decades.  Despite much of the same sort of prejudicial, anti-immigrant propaganda being spewed by many at the time, it didn't destroy the country.


Do we have the same industrial  infrastructure as we did back then? It's harder to be an unskilled worker and support yourself currently than it was back then.

Further, this "golden age" also had limits as well placed on those coming. People used to have to have proof they had a job lined up and were able to support themselves. We also had periods where we  put the brakes on immigration. One of the reasons they put limits on was to make sure the culture wasn't lost and diluted. They haled immigration until enough time past to where most that were here had a chance to assimilate.

Between 1925 and 1965, the US had a near moratorium on immigration. It wasn't until the 60's and 90's that saw changes to our laws that basically opened the floodgates.

BTW.......most don't have a problem with immigration as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's become a vehicle for recruiting voters for a particular party. Not going to sugar coat it man, who seems to gain the most here?

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #63 on: April 17, 2019, 12:31:31 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38765
  • Tommy Points: -27377
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think the wave of immigration is a serious issue, but it is a humanitarian and administrative issue.  It should not be a military issue.   Asking for asylum is not a crime.   People who go to a legal point of entry and ask for asylum should not prejudicially be treated as criminals until they have actually committed a crime.   And even then, crimes need to be handled with appropriate measure and due process.

From 1903 to 1914 we processed just about a million new legal residents per year.   From 2001 to 2017 the rate has been about the same.

Why is it that we are unable to handle it now compared to back then?   We are a far, far wealthier country now than then.

That wave back then was followed by massive economic growth and world influence for the U.S. over the next several decades.  Despite much of the same sort of prejudicial, anti-immigrant propaganda being spewed by many at the time, it didn't destroy the country.


Do we have the same industrial  infrastructure as we did back then? It's harder to be an unskilled worker and support yourself currently than it was back then.

Further, this "golden age" also had limits as well placed on those coming. People used to have to have proof they had a job lined up and were able to support themselves. We also had periods where we  put the brakes on immigration. One of the reasons they put limits on was to make sure the culture wasn't lost and diluted. They haled immigration until enough time past to where most that were here had a chance to assimilate.

Between 1925 and 1965, the US had a near moratorium on immigration. It wasn't until the 60's and 90's that saw changes to our laws that basically opened the floodgates.

BTW.......most don't have a problem with immigration as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's become a vehicle for recruiting voters for a particular party. Not going to sugar coat it man, who seems to gain the most here?

Right.  Back then there wasn't the social "safety net".  Immigrants worked.  That was there entire purpose for coming here, to find opportunity.  Now, immigrants and asylum seekers don't need to work.  They're eligible for a whole host of social programs, and they organize themselves in enclaves that advocate for themselves, often trying to exempt themselves from state law and oversight (case in point:  the Somalis in Maine have an agreement with the State that they won't be subject to local child welfare laws.)

The other factor is that in the 19th and early 20th century, the US was looking to expand its population.  That's not really the case now, when our population is 4x - 5x larger than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

And lastly, you're absolutely correct:  nobody on the right really objects to legal immigration.  Those people tend to have a plan, some level of resources, want to assimilate into our culture and get a job, etc.  But, who in their right mind wants to take in a caravan of unvetted migrants who violently break down gates to get into Mexico, and then attempt to do the same in America?  By definition, these are violent lawbreakers.  No wonder liberals don't want them in their sanctuary cities.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #64 on: April 17, 2019, 05:35:47 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3970
  • Tommy Points: 665
I think the wave of immigration is a serious issue, but it is a humanitarian and administrative issue.  It should not be a military issue.   Asking for asylum is not a crime.   People who go to a legal point of entry and ask for asylum should not prejudicially be treated as criminals until they have actually committed a crime.   And even then, crimes need to be handled with appropriate measure and due process.

From 1903 to 1914 we processed just about a million new legal residents per year.   From 2001 to 2017 the rate has been about the same.

Why is it that we are unable to handle it now compared to back then?   We are a far, far wealthier country now than then.

That wave back then was followed by massive economic growth and world influence for the U.S. over the next several decades.  Despite much of the same sort of prejudicial, anti-immigrant propaganda being spewed by many at the time, it didn't destroy the country.


Do we have the same industrial  infrastructure as we did back then? It's harder to be an unskilled worker and support yourself currently than it was back then.

Further, this "golden age" also had limits as well placed on those coming. People used to have to have proof they had a job lined up and were able to support themselves. We also had periods where we  put the brakes on immigration. One of the reasons they put limits on was to make sure the culture wasn't lost and diluted. They haled immigration until enough time past to where most that were here had a chance to assimilate.

Between 1925 and 1965, the US had a near moratorium on immigration. It wasn't until the 60's and 90's that saw changes to our laws that basically opened the floodgates.

BTW.......most don't have a problem with immigration as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's become a vehicle for recruiting voters for a particular party. Not going to sugar coat it man, who seems to gain the most here?

All you've identified is a problem of resource (wealth) distribution within the U.S.   That's a legitimate problem.   But it's not sufficient reason to justify prejudicially treating _legal_ asylum-seekers as criminals and enemy combatants, robbing them of due process.

Unless you want scapegoats, of course.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #65 on: April 17, 2019, 05:49:33 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3970
  • Tommy Points: 665
I think the wave of immigration is a serious issue, but it is a humanitarian and administrative issue.  It should not be a military issue.   Asking for asylum is not a crime.   People who go to a legal point of entry and ask for asylum should not prejudicially be treated as criminals until they have actually committed a crime.   And even then, crimes need to be handled with appropriate measure and due process.

From 1903 to 1914 we processed just about a million new legal residents per year.   From 2001 to 2017 the rate has been about the same.

Why is it that we are unable to handle it now compared to back then?   We are a far, far wealthier country now than then.

That wave back then was followed by massive economic growth and world influence for the U.S. over the next several decades.  Despite much of the same sort of prejudicial, anti-immigrant propaganda being spewed by many at the time, it didn't destroy the country.


Do we have the same industrial  infrastructure as we did back then? It's harder to be an unskilled worker and support yourself currently than it was back then.

Further, this "golden age" also had limits as well placed on those coming. People used to have to have proof they had a job lined up and were able to support themselves. We also had periods where we  put the brakes on immigration. One of the reasons they put limits on was to make sure the culture wasn't lost and diluted. They haled immigration until enough time past to where most that were here had a chance to assimilate.

Between 1925 and 1965, the US had a near moratorium on immigration. It wasn't until the 60's and 90's that saw changes to our laws that basically opened the floodgates.

BTW.......most don't have a problem with immigration as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's become a vehicle for recruiting voters for a particular party. Not going to sugar coat it man, who seems to gain the most here?

Right.  Back then there wasn't the social "safety net".  Immigrants worked.  That was there entire purpose for coming here, to find opportunity.  Now, immigrants and asylum seekers don't need to work.  They're eligible for a whole host of social programs, and they organize themselves in enclaves that advocate for themselves, often trying to exempt themselves from state law and oversight (case in point:  the Somalis in Maine have an agreement with the State that they won't be subject to local child welfare laws.)

The other factor is that in the 19th and early 20th century, the US was looking to expand its population.  That's not really the case now, when our population is 4x - 5x larger than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

And lastly, you're absolutely correct:  nobody on the right really objects to legal immigration.  Those people tend to have a plan, some level of resources, want to assimilate into our culture and get a job, etc.  But, who in their right mind wants to take in a caravan of unvetted migrants who violently break down gates to get into Mexico, and then attempt to do the same in America?  By definition, these are violent lawbreakers.  No wonder liberals don't want them in their sanctuary cities.

Your stance seems pre-loaded with the idea that immigrants today do not want to work, do not want to assimilate, do not want to get a job, etc.   That because a relative tiny handful 'broke down the gates' that that makes them all "violent lawbreakers".

I'd bet that same prejudice was voiced often by certain folks back during the waves of migration from Ireland, Italy and other Old World countries a hundred years ago.

There is a legal process that needs to be followed.  Prejudicial notions about these people should be irrelevant.  If a person or family of persons shows up at a port of entry and asks for asylum they are not to that point known to have committed any crime and should not be treated as a criminal.

The fact that our population is 4x-5x times larger should be irrelevant given that this country holds many, many times that in greater wealth.   And the U.S. is waaaaaaay down the list when it comes to population density.

The problem is really that so much of that wealth and so much of that land is controlled by so very few.   And boy are they determined to keep it.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #66 on: April 17, 2019, 06:10:52 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38765
  • Tommy Points: -27377
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I think the wave of immigration is a serious issue, but it is a humanitarian and administrative issue.  It should not be a military issue.   Asking for asylum is not a crime.   People who go to a legal point of entry and ask for asylum should not prejudicially be treated as criminals until they have actually committed a crime.   And even then, crimes need to be handled with appropriate measure and due process.

From 1903 to 1914 we processed just about a million new legal residents per year.   From 2001 to 2017 the rate has been about the same.

Why is it that we are unable to handle it now compared to back then?   We are a far, far wealthier country now than then.

That wave back then was followed by massive economic growth and world influence for the U.S. over the next several decades.  Despite much of the same sort of prejudicial, anti-immigrant propaganda being spewed by many at the time, it didn't destroy the country.


Do we have the same industrial  infrastructure as we did back then? It's harder to be an unskilled worker and support yourself currently than it was back then.

Further, this "golden age" also had limits as well placed on those coming. People used to have to have proof they had a job lined up and were able to support themselves. We also had periods where we  put the brakes on immigration. One of the reasons they put limits on was to make sure the culture wasn't lost and diluted. They haled immigration until enough time past to where most that were here had a chance to assimilate.

Between 1925 and 1965, the US had a near moratorium on immigration. It wasn't until the 60's and 90's that saw changes to our laws that basically opened the floodgates.

BTW.......most don't have a problem with immigration as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's become a vehicle for recruiting voters for a particular party. Not going to sugar coat it man, who seems to gain the most here?

Right.  Back then there wasn't the social "safety net".  Immigrants worked.  That was there entire purpose for coming here, to find opportunity.  Now, immigrants and asylum seekers don't need to work.  They're eligible for a whole host of social programs, and they organize themselves in enclaves that advocate for themselves, often trying to exempt themselves from state law and oversight (case in point:  the Somalis in Maine have an agreement with the State that they won't be subject to local child welfare laws.)

The other factor is that in the 19th and early 20th century, the US was looking to expand its population.  That's not really the case now, when our population is 4x - 5x larger than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

And lastly, you're absolutely correct:  nobody on the right really objects to legal immigration.  Those people tend to have a plan, some level of resources, want to assimilate into our culture and get a job, etc.  But, who in their right mind wants to take in a caravan of unvetted migrants who violently break down gates to get into Mexico, and then attempt to do the same in America?  By definition, these are violent lawbreakers.  No wonder liberals don't want them in their sanctuary cities.

Your stance seems pre-loaded with the idea that immigrants today do not want to work, do not want to assimilate, do not want to get a job, etc.   That because a relative tiny handful 'broke down the gates' that that makes them all "violent lawbreakers".

I'd bet that same prejudice was voiced often by certain folks back during the waves of migration from Ireland, Italy and other Old World countries a hundred years ago.

There is a legal process that needs to be followed.  Prejudicial notions about these people should be irrelevant.  If a person or family of persons shows up at a port of entry and asks for asylum they are not to that point known to have committed any crime and should not be treated as a criminal.

The fact that our population is 4x-5x times larger should be irrelevant given that this country holds many, many times that in greater wealth.   And the U.S. is waaaaaaay down the list when it comes to population density.

The problem is really that so much of that wealth and so much of that land is controlled by so very few.   And boy are they determined to keep it.

100000 people illegally crossed the border in March. Those are the illegal immigrants that people are objecting to, not the asylum seekers going through proper procedure (although that process is regularly abused, as well).


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #67 on: April 17, 2019, 11:07:12 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38765
  • Tommy Points: -27377
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
From today:

Quote
Senate Democrats are urging top members of the Appropriations Committee to restrict funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and to reject providing money for a U.S.-Mexico border wall or additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
 
[The letter] was spearheaded by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a presidential hopeful, and released Wednesday.
 
In addition to Harris, 18 other Democratic senators signed the letter, including her 2020 White House competitors Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). The Democratic senators want the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will begin drafting its own funding bills later this year, to reject the Trump administration's request for additional ICE agents, and include language that would limit what money the Department of Homeland Security could use to detain and remove immigrants from the United States. ...
 
They also want the Senate's funding bills to reduce the amount of money available for beds in the federal immigration detention system. ...
 
Money for ICE and the fight over the number of detention beds is likely to be a key point of contention in government funding talks later this year.
 
Calls to "abolish ICE" came under the national spotlight ahead of the 2018 midterm election. And the amount of funding for a border barrier and ICE detention beds were two of the last holdups in negotiations earlier this year to end the partial government shutdown.

It must be my Republican bias, but limiting money used to detain illegal immigrants sure seems like the Dems aren't seeing illegal immigration as a huge problem.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #68 on: April 18, 2019, 12:53:47 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 37338
  • Tommy Points: 6085
From today:

Quote
Senate Democrats are urging top members of the Appropriations Committee to restrict funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and to reject providing money for a U.S.-Mexico border wall or additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
 
[The letter] was spearheaded by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a presidential hopeful, and released Wednesday.
 
In addition to Harris, 18 other Democratic senators signed the letter, including her 2020 White House competitors Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). The Democratic senators want the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will begin drafting its own funding bills later this year, to reject the Trump administration's request for additional ICE agents, and include language that would limit what money the Department of Homeland Security could use to detain and remove immigrants from the United States. ...
 
They also want the Senate's funding bills to reduce the amount of money available for beds in the federal immigration detention system. ...
 
Money for ICE and the fight over the number of detention beds is likely to be a key point of contention in government funding talks later this year.
 
Calls to "abolish ICE" came under the national spotlight ahead of the 2018 midterm election. And the amount of funding for a border barrier and ICE detention beds were two of the last holdups in negotiations earlier this year to end the partial government shutdown.

It must be my Republican bias, but limiting money used to detain illegal immigrants sure seems like the Dems aren't seeing illegal immigration as a huge problem.
Interesting the portions of The Hill article that you edited out that gave some of the reasoning for the Democrats to have the opinions they do. Here is the article in full:

Quote
Senate Democrats are urging top members of the Appropriations Committee to restrict funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and to reject providing money for a U.S.-Mexico border wall or additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

 

In a letter to Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the top members on the panel, and Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the top members of its Homeland Security subcommittee, the senators drew bright red lines that could set up a new government funding fight.

 


"We cannot support the appropriation of funds that would expand this administration's unnecessarily cruel immigration enforcement policies, its inhumane immigrant detention systems, or its efforts to build the president's vanity projects," Democrats wrote in the letter, which was spearheaded by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a presidential hopeful, and released Wednesday.

 

In addition to Harris, 18 other Democratic senators signed the letter, including her 2020 White House competitors Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).


 

The Democratic senators want the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will begin drafting its own funding bills later this year, to reject the Trump administration's request for additional ICE agents, and include language that would limit what money the Department of Homeland Security could use to detain and remove immigrants from the United States.

 


"Under current funding levels, the administration has expanded immigration enforcement within American communities indiscriminately, failing to distinguish hardworking individuals with deep community ties and no criminal record from individuals convicted of a serious crime," the senators argue in their letter to appropriators.

 

They also want the Senate's funding bills to reduce the amount of money available for beds in the federal immigration detention system, arguing that it is "plagued by limited oversight and accountability and inhumane conditions."


 

"ICE immigration detention facilities and ICE contractors often fail to comply with ICE's own set of performance-based standards of care for detainees. ... We cannot in good conscience support increased funding for immigration detention beds that effectively sustain such cruel purposes," the senators add in their Wednesday letter.
 

Money for ICE and the fight over the number of detention beds is likely to be a key point of contention in government funding talks later this year.

 

Calls to "abolish ICE" came under the national spotlight ahead of the 2018 midterm election. And the amount of funding for a border barrier and ICE detention beds were two of the last holdups in negotiations earlier this year to end the partial government shutdown.

 

Democrats are also urging appropriators to reject funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall. Trump declared a national emergency to help get billions for the barrier, in addition to the $1.375 billion provided in the February funding bill.

 

"Congress must resist efforts to raid critical and effective public safety programs in order to pay for political theatrics," the Democratic senators added. "The president's manufactured emergency cannot justify spending taxpayer dollars on an ineffective wall." 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/439339-20-dems-demand-no-more-money-for-ice-agents-trump-wall%3famp

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #69 on: April 18, 2019, 01:39:57 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17606
  • Tommy Points: 1157
Quote
Your stance seems pre-loaded with the idea that immigrants today do not want to work, do not want to assimilate, do not want to get a job, etc.   That because a relative tiny handful 'broke down the gates' that that makes them all "violent lawbreakers".

Yet many disregard our laws in coming here as they do.   We have a legal process yet they feel they are above the laws.   This does not imply violence of course, but it does imply sovereign citizen attitude that the laws do not apply to them.

As for the assimilation, there is a reason that Spanish is one more items like ATMs, posters and grocery check outs and that is that people are not learning English and assimilating like they did in the past.  To pretend otherwise, is folly.   We don't have a national language yet we require those seeking citizens to show proficiency but these folks get a free pass.
Quote

 it's not sufficient reason to justify prejudicially treating _legal_ asylum-seekers as criminals and enemy combatants, robbing them of due process.
Some information that conflicts with what you say, your naivety is shocking.

Quote
Most asylum claims nowadays, whether in Europe or the United States, are not genuine. Migrants are more and more using the asylum ticket to gain entry into a country and stay.

Since 2014, more than 300,000 family units or unaccompanied minors have arrived illegally into the United States from Central America and applied for asylum claiming fear of gang members or violent husbands, etc. Most do not meet the refugee status requirements.

According to the Migration Policy Institute, "being forced to join a gang or experiencing violence do not generally qualify as a basis for refugee status or fall readily into one of the refugee definition categories."

In an Immigration Newsmaker conversation organized by the Center for Immigration Studies, Thomas D. Homan, Deputy Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the agency's acting director, explained how most Central American families (80 percent) submit fraudulent asylum claims to then disappear into the American society:

    [A] vast majority of these families [from Central America] don't show up in immigration court and they get an order in absentia, because they – not only did they enter the country illegally and go into hiding, they won't appear in front of an immigration judge... [L]ook at the facts of what's going on, look at how many families do not get a final fear finding from a judge – because most don't; like 80 percent of them do not ... So there's a lot of fraud going on. And they know it, and they're certainly not going to show up to a judge and, you know, present a fraudulent case. And 80 percent don't get a fear finding. So ... I think a majority of them are taking advantage of a low threshold, and there's a lot of asylum fraud going on, and they're hiding ... They figured out the loopholes. They figured that, as I just said, they can come and have due process at great taxpayer expense and just disappear into society.

https://cis.org/Rush/World-Refugee-Day-Lets-Address-Fraudulent-Asylum-Claims-Are-Detrimental-Legitimate-Asylum


Quote

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a Fox News interview that about 80 percent of people seeking asylum in immigration court do not receive it.

Verdict: True

About 80 percent of asylum cases in immigration court are denied or otherwise closed. That figure does not include thousands of people granted asylum outside of court.

dcnf-logo

Fact Check:

Nielsen mentioned the large portion of asylum-seekers who are not granted asylum after the Trump administration announced a “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal immigration on the southern border.

“About 80 percent pass that initial interview, but only 20 percent are granted asylum by a judge, which tells us that 80 percent of that is either just a flat-out fraud or somebody who thinks they can come here because they want a job here,” she said in a Fox News interview in May.

Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, also mentioned the figure on “Face the Nation” Sunday. “When [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] was in our office just a week-and-a-half ago, they told me 80 percent of the folks seeking asylum wind up not getting it, they are not actually eligible for it,” he said. “So they’re telling me the number; 80 percent aren’t actually legitimate asylum seekers. We need to sort that out.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Jordan’s office pointed The Daily Caller News Foundation to statistics on the number of asylum grants from the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). Immigration courts granted asylum in 20 percent of cases in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 and 17 percent of cases in FY 2016.

Immigration courts did not explicitly deny asylum in all of the other 80 percent to 83 percent of cases. They denied 34 percent in FY 2017 and 23 percent in FY 2016, but closed the rest of the cases because, among other reasons, the asylum-seeker never showed up or the applicant withdrew the claim. Some of the individuals in the closed cases could have gotten other forms of humanitarian relief or deportation deferrals.

EIOR calculates an asylum “grant rate” by comparing only explicit grants and denials, excluding cases closed for other reasons. By that calculation, with 8,726 grants and 11,643 denials, EOIR’s asylum grant rate was 43 percent in FY 2016 (or a denial rate of 57 percent).

The asylum denial rate is closer to the 80 percent figure when looking at decisions for people seeking asylum from Central America and Mexico rather than all countries. A significant portion of asylum-seekers and recipients are from China, for instance, and not as relevant to the debate about the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy on the southern border.

Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) also calculates immigration court asylum denial rates by comparing only grants and denials. Its data on EOIR asylum decisions shows that from FY 2012 to FY 2017, the asylum denial rate was 79 percent for people from El Salvador, 88 percent for people from Mexico, 78 percent for people from Honduras and 75 percent for people from Guatemala.

https://cis.org/Rush/World-Refugee-Day-Lets-Address-Fraudulent-Asylum-Claims-Are-Detrimental-Legitimate-Asylum

I think both sides support lawful immigration, I know I do.   You better not hope that Dems do not make this a central issue during the elections because it is a losing issue for them.

Quote
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 67% of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47% who say it’s a Very Serious one. Thirty-two percent (32%) say it’s not a serious problem, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who rate it as Not At All Serious. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/april_2019/questions_illegal_immigration_april_2_3_2019


So keep harping on this it is a losing issue and your just going to streamline Pres. Trump's re-election.  For me this isn't about brown or white but rather our laws and it it mind numbing to me, that people can still kick the can down the road when it is so obvious that we need comprehensive immigration reform.   You harp on due rights, but what about the blatant disregard for standing laws?     That that truly bode well for blending with the country as so many have done in the past?

To me it seems the left is more concerned about the concerns of non-citizens than citizens.   But yet they do lip service and do nothing and are playing these people, they do not care any more than the GOP at the end of the day.  The protests about housing individuals in the Sanctuary Cities show that the concern is not genuine and that they are ok here, just not in our towns.   The GOP is just as guilty as they should have passed immigration reform when they held power and lacked the morale courage to do so.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2019, 01:47:22 AM by Celtics4ever »

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #70 on: April 18, 2019, 01:41:14 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38765
  • Tommy Points: -27377
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
From today:

Quote
Senate Democrats are urging top members of the Appropriations Committee to restrict funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and to reject providing money for a U.S.-Mexico border wall or additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
 
[The letter] was spearheaded by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a presidential hopeful, and released Wednesday.
 
In addition to Harris, 18 other Democratic senators signed the letter, including her 2020 White House competitors Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). The Democratic senators want the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will begin drafting its own funding bills later this year, to reject the Trump administration's request for additional ICE agents, and include language that would limit what money the Department of Homeland Security could use to detain and remove immigrants from the United States. ...
 
They also want the Senate's funding bills to reduce the amount of money available for beds in the federal immigration detention system. ...
 
Money for ICE and the fight over the number of detention beds is likely to be a key point of contention in government funding talks later this year.
 
Calls to "abolish ICE" came under the national spotlight ahead of the 2018 midterm election. And the amount of funding for a border barrier and ICE detention beds were two of the last holdups in negotiations earlier this year to end the partial government shutdown.

It must be my Republican bias, but limiting money used to detain illegal immigrants sure seems like the Dems aren't seeing illegal immigration as a huge problem.
Interesting the portions of The Hill article that you edited out that gave some of the reasoning for the Democrats to have the opinions they do. Here is the article in full:

Quote
Senate Democrats are urging top members of the Appropriations Committee to restrict funding for the Department of Homeland Security, and to reject providing money for a U.S.-Mexico border wall or additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

 

In a letter to Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the top members on the panel, and Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the top members of its Homeland Security subcommittee, the senators drew bright red lines that could set up a new government funding fight.

 


"We cannot support the appropriation of funds that would expand this administration's unnecessarily cruel immigration enforcement policies, its inhumane immigrant detention systems, or its efforts to build the president's vanity projects," Democrats wrote in the letter, which was spearheaded by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a presidential hopeful, and released Wednesday.

 

In addition to Harris, 18 other Democratic senators signed the letter, including her 2020 White House competitors Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).


 

The Democratic senators want the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will begin drafting its own funding bills later this year, to reject the Trump administration's request for additional ICE agents, and include language that would limit what money the Department of Homeland Security could use to detain and remove immigrants from the United States.

 


"Under current funding levels, the administration has expanded immigration enforcement within American communities indiscriminately, failing to distinguish hardworking individuals with deep community ties and no criminal record from individuals convicted of a serious crime," the senators argue in their letter to appropriators.

 

They also want the Senate's funding bills to reduce the amount of money available for beds in the federal immigration detention system, arguing that it is "plagued by limited oversight and accountability and inhumane conditions."


 

"ICE immigration detention facilities and ICE contractors often fail to comply with ICE's own set of performance-based standards of care for detainees. ... We cannot in good conscience support increased funding for immigration detention beds that effectively sustain such cruel purposes," the senators add in their Wednesday letter.
 

Money for ICE and the fight over the number of detention beds is likely to be a key point of contention in government funding talks later this year.

 

Calls to "abolish ICE" came under the national spotlight ahead of the 2018 midterm election. And the amount of funding for a border barrier and ICE detention beds were two of the last holdups in negotiations earlier this year to end the partial government shutdown.

 

Democrats are also urging appropriators to reject funding for the U.S.-Mexico border wall. Trump declared a national emergency to help get billions for the barrier, in addition to the $1.375 billion provided in the February funding bill.

 

"Congress must resist efforts to raid critical and effective public safety programs in order to pay for political theatrics," the Democratic senators added. "The president's manufactured emergency cannot justify spending taxpayer dollars on an ineffective wall." 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/439339-20-dems-demand-no-more-money-for-ice-agents-trump-wall%3famp

Yes, I presented the facts, not the spin.

Do you tend to by into Trump’s talking points at face value as well, or just the propaganda of Democrat politicians?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #71 on: April 18, 2019, 07:41:13 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17606
  • Tommy Points: 1157
Today, you will see tons of people harping on laws that Barr broke once this report comes out.   Yet millions of people have entered the US illegally and they don't care a whole lot about that at all.   It would seems laws only apply when they fulfill one's political bias, eh?

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #72 on: April 18, 2019, 09:45:07 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38765
  • Tommy Points: -27377
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
This is why illegal immigration is a winning issue for Trump:

Quote
An illegal immigrant with prior convictions and multiple arrests for offenses such as false imprisonment and battery has been taken into custody in the stabbing death of a woman in San Jose, California.

Law enforcement officials decried the state's sanctuary law as they revealed that before the murder, Santa Clara County officials ignored no less than nine U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests for the self-professed gang member.

What are the details?

Police say Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza, 24, stalked 59-year-old Bambi Larson before breaking into her home and killing her in her bedroom last month. Larson's body was discovered by her son on Feb. 28, when he checked in on her after she failed to show up for work.

Carranza was arrested Monday after investigators linked him to the crime using DNA evidence from Larson's home. He was also seen on security footage "stalking" the area near Larson's home on the day of her murder and well as leaving the residence after the crime was committed.

The transient's lengthy rap sheet goes back to 2013 when he was arrested for crossing into the U.S. at the southern border. He was deported back to Mexico but returned only to be arrested another 10 times with at least three convictions prior to Larson's murder, according to the Daily Mail.

At the time of his arrest, Carranza was on probation for false imprisonment, burglary, and possession of methamphetamine.

By all means, let’s have fewer detention beds, fewer ICE agents, and sanctuary for violent criminals.

I truly feel that anybody who supports sanctuary for violent felons is complicit in murders like these.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #73 on: April 18, 2019, 10:06:10 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21031
  • Tommy Points: 9125
This is why illegal immigration is a winning issue for Trump:

Quote
An illegal immigrant with prior convictions and multiple arrests for offenses such as false imprisonment and battery has been taken into custody in the stabbing death of a woman in San Jose, California.

Law enforcement officials decried the state's sanctuary law as they revealed that before the murder, Santa Clara County officials ignored no less than nine U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests for the self-professed gang member.

What are the details?

Police say Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza, 24, stalked 59-year-old Bambi Larson before breaking into her home and killing her in her bedroom last month. Larson's body was discovered by her son on Feb. 28, when he checked in on her after she failed to show up for work.

Carranza was arrested Monday after investigators linked him to the crime using DNA evidence from Larson's home. He was also seen on security footage "stalking" the area near Larson's home on the day of her murder and well as leaving the residence after the crime was committed.

The transient's lengthy rap sheet goes back to 2013 when he was arrested for crossing into the U.S. at the southern border. He was deported back to Mexico but returned only to be arrested another 10 times with at least three convictions prior to Larson's murder, according to the Daily Mail.

At the time of his arrest, Carranza was on probation for false imprisonment, burglary, and possession of methamphetamine.

By all means, let’s have fewer detention beds, fewer ICE agents, and sanctuary for violent criminals.

I truly feel that anybody who supports sanctuary for violent felons is complicit in murders like these.
"an immigrant" is what you're hanging your hat on for this debate?   ::)   yes, by all means, let's focus on that individual.   god knows knows we need to restrict all criminal activity to the natural-born American citizens who should have the exclusive 'right' to commit crimes here. 

on that note though, I'll profess my ignorance on this issue but shouldn't this individual have been doing prison time for the offenses he committed in this country rather than being deported?  Once he served his sentence, wouldn't he have been deported at that point?  I'm not thrilled with the country having to foot the bill for his incarceration but perhaps doing time here would have given him a reason to reconsider his desire to return after deportation.

as for the bed restrictions, the reasoning provided by Dem leadership was to motivate ICE to get immigrants processed through the system rather than warehouse them until they felt like dealing with them.  I don't agree with that logic since it seems like a misguided attempt to address that issue.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #74 on: April 18, 2019, 10:26:29 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38765
  • Tommy Points: -27377
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
I'll profess my ignorance on this issue but shouldn't this individual have been doing prison time for the offenses he committed in this country rather than being deported?  Once he served his sentence, wouldn't he have been deported at that point? 

That's the problem:  if a jurisdiction ignores ICE detainer requests, and refuses to let ICE know when an illegal immigrant is in custody, then the criminal can't be deported.

That's why conservatives hate "sanctuary" so much.  We should all agree that at least for violent felons who are here illegally, jurisdictions should do everything in their power to get them deported (before or after serving their sentence).  Instead, mostly Democrat jurisdictions fight this tooth and nail.  It's why I'm skeptical when I hear that Democrats are serious about combating illegal immigration. 


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required