Maybe keep enforcement far South of our border?
Though he is starting to let many others start crossing the US border.
It looks like the DEMs are torn between the "let them all in and give them money" crazies and the more rational individuals.
Even Biden's current actions appear to be red meat for conservatives.
Here is a description of Biden's proposal. It makes some sense, however I am not sure the USA can fix the broken Central American countries enough to stop people from seeking to come to the land of opportunity and free money. (ie USA)
And it is going to be rough since many "open borders" folk did not like Obama's policies and actions.
42 comments:
What you do when you are in the opposition is focus on tough issues, issues without easy solutions, and then complain the party in power isn't solving them. Pretty much anything the party in power does, will be complained of, mostly on the ground that it isn't "tough". We like "tough". It focus group's well.
Illegal immigration has a problem. While it is wrong, while it is illegal, while in certain situations it may be a crime, under no set of circumstances is the crime a very serious one. We can't use deadly force to prevent it. We can't install mines at the border. We are responsibile for the well being and care of illegal immigrants who come into our custody, particularly children. Children because of their age and immaturity, are incapable of committing crimes. So what's the solution? Should that solution be crafted in such a way to avoid charges of lack of toughness from people who have an incentive to make it?
Got me.
--Hiram
I think finishing the walls and forcing people to the manned border crossing is a good start.
And leaving people in Mexico while our courts rule is just fine with me. Not sure why people frown on that...
I don't see much Republican enthusiasm for walls right now. Where is the wall bill in Congress?
--Hiram
It is a bit sad that people don't support such a simple and relatively effective device.
It wa always a Trump issue and it was for him a metaphor and euphemism for his racism. The issue of the wall itslef seems to have disappeared now that Trump is gone. It was simple, even simplistic, but neither one is a reason for doing something. As for effective. lots of illegal immigrants came here on planes, and no one is suggesting putting fences around airports would be effective in keeping them out.
The wall is sometnhing few people want, but which Republicans like to blame Democrats for not doing. There are lot of issues like that. A lot of wedge issues are that way.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Everyone who came here via airplane entered the country legally and we know who they are, when they arrived, etc. Just like everyone who is allowed to enter after being registered at the Southern border.
Walls are there to make it more difficult for people to walk across the border without being registered, searched, etc. And they do this very well.
Ah yes, immigration -- another issue that Republicans treat like an existential threat during campaign season but have no solution for when they actually have power.
This thread is a sign that nature is healing, though. All the old talking points are getting dusted off and deployed.
Sorry but I sure don't see Joe or the DEMs proposing anything better. Well I mean other than making it easier for uninvited guests to show up on our border to be let in.
What do you see as better about the DEM solution?
Improving the conditions in Central America seems a worthy goal. I hope they have better luck than we did in Iraq and Afghanistan...
It definitely looks like he is doubling down on bringing in more of the poor and uneducated.
By this I mean prioritizing family re-unification over individual qualifications and skills.
Though he is looking at how to keep foreign students that were educated here working here.
Biden's immigration plan reflects a complicated reality, unlike Republican sloganeering that couldn't actually be implemented.
What is complicated about:
- keeping people out of the country until their immigration, asylum or refugee status has been approved?
- deporting people who have entered illegally or over stayed their visa?
- focus on immigrating people to the USA who have an education, skills and/or money?
This has nothing to with complexity. It has to do with Liberals wanting to sooth their bleeding hearts. Unfortunately as we have been discussing, that just means more low skilled low educated people fighting for ever fewer jobs in that space...
As I keep saying, the DEMs may make it easy for the GOP in 2022. Even with the GOP as screwed up as it is.
"- keeping people out of the country until their immigration, asylum or refugee status has been approved?"
Saying this shows you don't understand how the law currently works. Again, if this is what y'all wanted, you could have changed the law when you held control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
"- focus on immigrating people to the USA who have an education, skills and/or money?"
Biden's plan does things to increase immigration from these folks, too. Even the Cato Institute generally likes Biden's plan.
Sean,
The Trump administration was doing quite well at keeping people in Mexico, not sure why Biden is cranking up letting them into the USA?
Yes CATO is pretty pro-immigration. It aligns with their mission.
"The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Our vision is to create free, open, and civil societies founded on libertarian principles."
Of course, I assume they will be against the big expensive government the DEMs are proposing to support all the poor, unskilled and under educated folks who won't have a job.
It certainly is a complicated topic.
Apparently this is the policy we are discussing...
Pro Mexican Protection Protocols
Anti Mexican Protection Protocols
The challenge is "How to dissuade people from coming to the border who DO NOT meet asylum requirements?" while "Encouraging those who will meet the requirements?"
Or are you truly wanting to weaken the asylum standards so most people can come and stay here?
"The Trump administration was doing quite well at keeping people in Mexico, not sure why Biden is cranking up letting them into the USA?"
Under U.S. law, folks who are making asylum claims have a right to have a hearing. Now maybe we've learned over the last four years that Presidential law-following is optional so long as you can get 34 Senators to back you, but at some point we can't just keep dumping our problem on Mexico. We need to pass a new immigration bill and work with our Central American neighbors to solve this problem.
Some Facts regarding US Asylum
Apparently the majority of applicants do not qualify and are therefore deported after wasting US resources
Sean,
The only way to stop this is to make Central America, Mexico and the USA more equal economically. Some poor will always seek a better life elsewhere.
And since many people from other countries in the world are using the same route. That will not even solve it.
Again... Their are billions of people living in poverty in the world. How many do you want to invite in each year "to save them" from the circumstances that they were born into?
And at what cost to the poor already in the USA? Or to the USA's ability to compete globally?
And if the USA falters even further, who is going to save the world? I mean we are already deep in debt. :-(
My thoughts go back to my boat race comparison...
Each country is rowing a boat with 100 rowers.
The country that has the correct mix of rowers and uses them effectively will win.
How does loading our boat up with certain people and policies help us keep winning for the good of our children and the world?
What happens to our country, children and the world when the USA loses its leadership position to China or another more effective country?
"Apparently the majority of applicants do not qualify and are therefore deported after wasting US resources"
Again, if you want to change this, you need a new immigration law. Until then, we have to follow the current law.
"How many do you want to invite in each year "to save them" from the circumstances that they were born into?"
The notion that we're somehow drowning in immigrants is nonsense. We've got perhaps the restrictive immigration policies at any point in our nation's history. Over the last five years, the number of immigrants we've accepted is about half of the OECD average (based on % of population). Many countries who are much smaller take in much higher number of immigrants. We have plenty of ability to smartly increase the number of immigrants we bring in on an annual basis.
Oh come now, I expect more from you.
The Trump MPP Policy was found legal.
And we are at nearly our highest foreign born percentage of all times.
And this time we do not have millions of acres to populate or an industrial revolution to support.
I am fine with the ~1.5 million per year number. But what to do about people fleeing poverty that just show up uninvited? That is the question that you have been unwilling to quantify.
Or do you deny the simple logic that if access is easy, benefits are good, then more people will show up uninvited on our Southern border?
This is an interesting read.
Hopefully Mexico and Guatemala continue to work at dissuading these folks that Biden is encouraging through his actions. Or I see more border entry records in our future.
"The Trump MPP Policy was found legal."
No, that's not correct. The Ninth Circuit ruled against MPP, but SCOTUS allowed it to remain in place while under appeal. The case was scheduled to be heard at SCOTUS later this month, but that has been postponed.
"And this time we do not have millions of acres to populate"
We've got lots of room, especially given that even under the Biden proposals, we still will be a laggard in immigration as a percentage of the population on an annual basis.
So MPP may or may not be legal...
And did you even look at the map? The PEW headline seems very incorrect since most countries are the same color or lighter than the USA.
Now don't play dumb... :-) Who's land would you like to give them? Or maybe some Federal land out in the middle of no where? Do you have some land to give up so they can start a garden?
The simple reality is that the USA needed a LOT of hard working low educated immigrants in the 1900 time frame... Opportunities abounded for them...
Now we face automation, rising labor costs, rising entitlements, etc...
What immigrants will help our boat compete and which will cause it to sink?
That is a puzzling question.
"And did you even look at the map? The PEW headline seems very incorrect since most countries are the same color or lighter than the USA."
Sure, I looked at the map. Yes, it's true that overall we have a relatively high percentage of foreign-born people living in our country. It's also true that in recent years we haven't been letting as many in, and are near the bottom of the OECD in terms of immigration as a percentage of population.
"Who's land would you like to give them?"
My only point is that the United States is not densely populated. Even NYC is not terribly dense when compared to other large metropolitan areas around the world. We are not out of space by any measure.
The problem is not space...
It is how will they earn their livelihood and feed their children?
My Great Grandparents took the government's deal to settle on 160 acres of prairie in the middle of no where, to risk their lives, and to struggle to improve/live off it. And the government / tax payers got paid back as the farms started producing.
This is very different, especially with automation coming on strong...
I'll research the map for a future post.
"It is how will they earn their livelihood and feed their children?"
Before the pandemic, foreign-born folks had a lower unemployment rate than native-born Americans.
Remember the part about "non-livable" wage jobs and how liberals want to end them?
And yes often I wish we could keep many immigrants and deport our US born dead weight from the boat. :-)
Your whataboutism is tiresome.
I agree but denying a looming disaster by ignoring the very realistic likely consequences is even worse.
Bringing in lots of low skill / low education workers
Trying to drive up the costs of employing them through governmental mandates
Attracting even more low skill / low education workers
Losing jobs for these type of employees to automation / off shoring as cost rise
Then????
I sure wish someone did have a solution other than just "help them" and don't think about 5 years from now...
"I agree but denying a looming disaster by ignoring the very realistic likely consequences is even worse."
Looming disaster? Again, we're talking here in Biden's plan about immigration levels lower than where they were for most of the time between 2001 and 2016. Get a grip.
I have no problem with the legal planned levels as you well know.
It is the unplanned asylum seekers showing up uninvited at our Southern border and the Liberal contingents unwillingness to say NO to them that concerns me.
It will be interesting to see how it goes.
Remember the disaster that was that was 2019 before Trump and crew clamped down hard again.
I am curious and concerned what Biden will do if that starts happening again.
"I am curious and concerned what Biden will do if that starts happening again."
Well, I presume he will follow the law as it is written.
You are so funny... :-)
Exactly which law are you referring to?
This is maybe what you are looking for?
"(1)In general
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
(2)Exceptions
(A)Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.
(B)Time limit
Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States."
"Exactly which law are you referring to?"
The one you cited.
I presume your highlighting of the "safe third country" is meaningful to you in some way? Except, of course, the U.S. doesn't have any such agreement with Mexico.
I think we can get there if the President wants it...
Unfortunately if the President is okay with people flowing through Mexico up to our front front door for rapid admittance.... Then Mexico will probably let them through.
Mexico is pretty easy for a US President to influence... They know where their money comes from. :-)
"Mexico is pretty easy for a US President to influence"
So when does their check for the wall arrive, then?
Yeah that was never going to work since the USA is the source of most of their revenues.
However they can be very agreeable when their revenues are threatened or we offer them additional financial assistance.
"we offer them additional financial assistance"
Sorry, can't afford it. We have tax cuts for the rich to pay for.
Oh they can convinced for a near rounding error on the US budget... :-)
"The United States pledged $5.8 billion in aid and investment Tuesday for strengthening government and economic development in Central America, and another $4.8 billion in development aid for southern Mexico.
The U.S aid aims to promote better security conditions and job opportunities as part of a regional plan to allow Central Americans and Mexicans to remain in their countries and not have to emigrate.
The plan was announced in a joint U.S.-Mexican statement released by the State Department and read aloud by Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard in the Mexican capital."
It looks like Biden is learning. Pay MX and Guatemala to be the bad guys... Fewer cameras down there?
Post a Comment