old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:13 pm
Our number of migrant entries now exceeds our national birth rate.
Yes, because our birthrate has been in the tank for YEARS and the COVID death rate didn't help either.
Whether you like it or not, we are likely going to need these workers to maintain growth.
It's akin to why we allowed all those Chinese, Irish and German immigrants in mid 19th Century because there were not enough native-born to provide labor for the economic engine. Expanded the pool in late 19th Century to Eastern/Southern Europe until the WASP politicians cut immigration significantly starting in the 1920s.
In fact, one of the reasons you have the alleged "easy to scam" asylum laws on the books is because those same folks made sure that European Jews in the 1930s could not emigrate to America even though they had a pretty good idea what the Nazis were doing. After the war and Holocaust asylum laws were changed to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:13 pm
Our number of migrant entries now exceeds our national birth rate.
Yes, because our birthrate has been in the tank for YEARS and the COVID death rate didn't help either.
Whether you like it or not, we are likely going to need these workers to maintain growth.
It's akin to why we allowed all those Chinese, Irish and German immigrants in mid 19th Century because there were not enough native-born to provide labor for the economic engine. Expanded the pool in late 19th Century to Eastern/Southern Europe until the WASP politicians cut immigration significantly starting in the 1920s.
In fact, one of the reasons you have the alleged "easy to scam" asylum laws on the books is because those same folks made sure that European Jews in the 1930s could not emigrate to America even though they had a pretty good idea what the Nazis were doing. After the war and Holocaust asylum laws were changed to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.
If we legitimized the presence of everyone (other than the criminals) here now & allowed them to work, would we still have a labor shortage & demographic imbalance ? We'll never know unless we gain control of the border, use everyone who is here now, then assess how many & what skill levels we need to sustain our economy. I'm for expanded, controlled, migration rather than the Hunger Games criminally operated chaos we currently have. I don't consider work visas or green cards to be amnesty unless they lead to guaranteed citizenship, which needs to be fairly earned as legal immigrants do. We can't do any of that until we regain control of the border.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:13 pm
Our number of migrant entries now exceeds our national birth rate.
Yes, because our birthrate has been in the tank for YEARS and the COVID death rate didn't help either.
Whether you like it or not, we are likely going to need these workers to maintain growth.
It's akin to why we allowed all those Chinese, Irish and German immigrants in mid 19th Century because there were not enough native-born to provide labor for the economic engine. Expanded the pool in late 19th Century to Eastern/Southern Europe until the WASP politicians cut immigration significantly starting in the 1920s.
In fact, one of the reasons you have the alleged "easy to scam" asylum laws on the books is because those same folks made sure that European Jews in the 1930s could not emigrate to America even though they had a pretty good idea what the Nazis were doing. After the war and Holocaust asylum laws were changed to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.
If we legitimized the presence of everyone (other than the criminals) here now & allowed them to work, would we still have a labor shortage & demographic imbalance ? We'll never know unless we gain control of the border, use everyone who is here now, then assess how many & what skill levels we need to sustain our economy. I'm for expanded, controlled, migration rather than the Hunger Games criminally operated chaos we currently have. I don't consider work visas or green cards to be amnesty unless they lead to guaranteed citizenship, which needs to be fairly earned as legal immigrants do. We can't do any of that until we regain control of the border.
That's a similar line those WASPS fed everyone as the rationale from significantly curbing immigration in the 1920s - Bigotry and Eugenics
As for gaining control of the border - YOUR folks just deep-sixed legislation designed to do just that.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 4:58 pm
Imho, we need to legitimize those already here unlawfully, allow them to work, then see how many more we need.
This is LITERALLY what I just told you, and have been telling you since our attention turned to Venezuelans in Denver.
And your reaction to this was to laugh at me above. Now you're on here, acting like you came up with this all by yourself. Cool.
If you keep digging in the archives, you'll see I've maintained this position from the start.
We can't do it until we regain control of the border & come up with a fair way to legitimize & employ the millions already here illegaly, & we can't do that until we regain control of the border.
You say my party won't do anything. The House passed HR 2. The Speaker has urged the Senate to take it up & bring it to the conference committee.
Shumer & Biden won't even look at it.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:13 pm
Our number of migrant entries now exceeds our national birth rate.
Yes, because our birthrate has been in the tank for YEARS and the COVID death rate didn't help either.
Whether you like it or not, we are likely going to need these workers to maintain growth.
It's akin to why we allowed all those Chinese, Irish and German immigrants in mid 19th Century because there were not enough native-born to provide labor for the economic engine. Expanded the pool in late 19th Century to Eastern/Southern Europe until the WASP politicians cut immigration significantly starting in the 1920s.
In fact, one of the reasons you have the alleged "easy to scam" asylum laws on the books is because those same folks made sure that European Jews in the 1930s could not emigrate to America even though they had a pretty good idea what the Nazis were doing. After the war and Holocaust asylum laws were changed to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.
If we legitimized the presence of everyone (other than the criminals) here now & allowed them to work, would we still have a labor shortage & demographic imbalance ? We'll never know unless we gain control of the border, use everyone who is here now, then assess how many & what skill levels we need to sustain our economy. I'm for expanded, controlled, migration rather than the Hunger Games criminally operated chaos we currently have. I don't consider work visas or green cards to be amnesty unless they lead to guaranteed citizenship, which needs to be fairly earned as legal immigrants do. We can't do any of that until we regain control of the border.
That's a similar line those WASPS fed everyone as the rationale from significantly curbing immigration in the 1920s - Bigotry and Eugenics
As for gaining control of the border - YOUR folks just deep-sixed legislation designed to do just that.
I accept the fact that most immigrants will be of non-European heritage -- as it should be.
It will be mostly extended family of immigrants already here.
"MY FOLKS" don't trust Biden & a Dem successor not to circumvent it. It does not limit Biden's abuse of TSP parole for the entire population of 4 nations. They don't trust DHS under Biden & Myorkis to select Immigration Judges who would deny asylum to economic migrants with the same rigor that current DoJ Judges do. It just gives Biden more $$$ & authority to streamline his current open border policy. It doesn't compel Biden to do anything.
I supported it because it's an emergency situation & it would force Biden to do something & a (R) President could use it to reduce the pull factor by using the detention & deportation authorities which Biden has refused to use.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:13 pm
Our number of migrant entries now exceeds our national birth rate.
Yes, because our birthrate has been in the tank for YEARS and the COVID death rate didn't help either.
Whether you like it or not, we are likely going to need these workers to maintain growth.
It's akin to why we allowed all those Chinese, Irish and German immigrants in mid 19th Century because there were not enough native-born to provide labor for the economic engine. Expanded the pool in late 19th Century to Eastern/Southern Europe until the WASP politicians cut immigration significantly starting in the 1920s.
In fact, one of the reasons you have the alleged "easy to scam" asylum laws on the books is because those same folks made sure that European Jews in the 1930s could not emigrate to America even though they had a pretty good idea what the Nazis were doing. After the war and Holocaust asylum laws were changed to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.
If we legitimized the presence of everyone (other than the criminals) here now & allowed them to work, would we still have a labor shortage & demographic imbalance ? We'll never know unless we gain control of the border, use everyone who is here now, then assess how many & what skill levels we need to sustain our economy. I'm for expanded, controlled, migration rather than the Hunger Games criminally operated chaos we currently have. I don't consider work visas or green cards to be amnesty unless they lead to guaranteed citizenship, which needs to be fairly earned as legal immigrants do. We can't do any of that until we regain control of the border.
That's a similar line those WASPS fed everyone as the rationale from significantly curbing immigration in the 1920s - Bigotry and Eugenics
As for gaining control of the border - YOUR folks just deep-sixed legislation designed to do just that.
I accept the fact that most immigrants will be of non-European heritage -- as it should be.
It will be mostly extended family of immigrants already here.
"MY FOLKS" don't trust Biden & a Dem successor not to circumvent it. It does not limit Biden's abuse of TSP parole for the entire population of 4 nations. They don't trust DHS under Biden & Myorkis to select Immigration Judges who would deny asylum to economic migrants with the same rigor that current DoJ Judges do. It just gives Biden more $$$ & authority to streamline his current open border policy. It doesn't compel Biden to do anything.
I supported it because it's an emergency situation & it would force Biden to do something & a (R) President could use it to reduce the pull factor by using the detention & deportation authorities which Biden has refused to use.
What was the problem with Obama’s immigration policy? I don’t recall you championing it but I may have missed it. You are opposed to economic migrants?
Last edited by Typical Lax Dad on Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:34 pm
If you keep digging in the archives, you'll see I've maintained this position from the start.
Oh, I know. It's not like you came up with this by yourself. This has been the R party line excuse as to why they can't pass any immigration bills.
it's an excuse, not a fact.
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:34 pm
We can't do it until we regain control of the border & come up with a fair way to legitimize & employ the millions already here illegaly, & we can't do that until we regain control of the border.
According to who? You? Saying this over and over won't make it a fact, OS.
There is NOTHING keeping us from simply issuing work VISAs to everyone here in the US. Or throwing HR managers in jail for violating labor laws. Nothing. There is no law that prevents this. There is no rule that prevents this. There is only you and your party making up reasons as to why a bill or action isn't perfect, and is "therefore" bad.
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:34 pm
You say my party won't do anything. The House passed HR 2. The Speaker has urged the Senate to take it up & bring it to the conference committee.
Shumer & Biden won't even look at it.
And Biden submitted his immigration bill the month he arrived as POTUS. So what?
All you want to do is avoid holding your party responsible. Just like they want you to do. And you keep rewarding this game.
You and your fellow R voters are unwilling to change. So your leaders do exactly what you tell them to do: nothing, until "the border is sealed".
You forget according to you, your man Trump did that. So....where was the immigration bill that you think follows that secure border.
Whoops. You and your Republican leaders "forgot" to do that. Must've been an accident. An oversight. Trump slipped on a banana and "forgot" your theory that "once the border is secure, then we get an immigration reform bill".
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:13 pm
Our number of migrant entries now exceeds our national birth rate.
Yes, because our birthrate has been in the tank for YEARS and the COVID death rate didn't help either.
Whether you like it or not, we are likely going to need these workers to maintain growth.
It's akin to why we allowed all those Chinese, Irish and German immigrants in mid 19th Century because there were not enough native-born to provide labor for the economic engine. Expanded the pool in late 19th Century to Eastern/Southern Europe until the WASP politicians cut immigration significantly starting in the 1920s.
In fact, one of the reasons you have the alleged "easy to scam" asylum laws on the books is because those same folks made sure that European Jews in the 1930s could not emigrate to America even though they had a pretty good idea what the Nazis were doing. After the war and Holocaust asylum laws were changed to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.
If we legitimized the presence of everyone (other than the criminals) here now & allowed them to work, would we still have a labor shortage & demographic imbalance ? We'll never know unless we gain control of the border, use everyone who is here now, then assess how many & what skill levels we need to sustain our economy. I'm for expanded, controlled, migration rather than the Hunger Games criminally operated chaos we currently have. I don't consider work visas or green cards to be amnesty unless they lead to guaranteed citizenship, which needs to be fairly earned as legal immigrants do. We can't do any of that until we regain control of the border.
That's a similar line those WASPS fed everyone as the rationale from significantly curbing immigration in the 1920s - Bigotry and Eugenics
As for gaining control of the border - YOUR folks just deep-sixed legislation designed to do just that.
I accept the fact that most immigrants will be of non-European heritage -- as it should be.
It will be mostly extended family of immigrants already here.
"MY FOLKS" don't trust Biden & a Dem successor not to circumvent it. It does not limit Biden's abuse of TSP parole for the entire population of 4 nations. They don't trust DHS under Biden & Myorkis to select Immigration Judges who would deny asylum to economic migrants with the same rigor that current DoJ Judges do. It just gives Biden more $$$ & authority to streamline his current open border policy. It doesn't compel Biden to do anything.
I supported it because it's an emergency situation & it would force Biden to do something & a (R) President could use it to reduce the pull factor by using the detention & deportation authorities which Biden has refused to use.
What was the problem with Obama’s immigration policy? I don’t recall you championing it but I may have missed it. You are opposed to economic migrants?
I don't recall my criticizing Obama on this. It wasn't this bad then. The caravans were just starting. He did what he could & was blocked by some 9th Circuit Judgements. I was a big fan of Jeh Johnson. Obama took heat from the left for deporting so many. Johnson was for closing the asylum loophole.
I'm opposed to economic migrants being granted asylum. I'm in favor of work visas if they obtain them & enter legally.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:13 pm
Our number of migrant entries now exceeds our national birth rate.
Yes, because our birthrate has been in the tank for YEARS and the COVID death rate didn't help either.
Whether you like it or not, we are likely going to need these workers to maintain growth.
It's akin to why we allowed all those Chinese, Irish and German immigrants in mid 19th Century because there were not enough native-born to provide labor for the economic engine. Expanded the pool in late 19th Century to Eastern/Southern Europe until the WASP politicians cut immigration significantly starting in the 1920s.
In fact, one of the reasons you have the alleged "easy to scam" asylum laws on the books is because those same folks made sure that European Jews in the 1930s could not emigrate to America even though they had a pretty good idea what the Nazis were doing. After the war and Holocaust asylum laws were changed to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.
If we legitimized the presence of everyone (other than the criminals) here now & allowed them to work, would we still have a labor shortage & demographic imbalance ? We'll never know unless we gain control of the border, use everyone who is here now, then assess how many & what skill levels we need to sustain our economy. I'm for expanded, controlled, migration rather than the Hunger Games criminally operated chaos we currently have. I don't consider work visas or green cards to be amnesty unless they lead to guaranteed citizenship, which needs to be fairly earned as legal immigrants do. We can't do any of that until we regain control of the border.
That's a similar line those WASPS fed everyone as the rationale from significantly curbing immigration in the 1920s - Bigotry and Eugenics
As for gaining control of the border - YOUR folks just deep-sixed legislation designed to do just that.
I accept the fact that most immigrants will be of non-European heritage -- as it should be.
It will be mostly extended family of immigrants already here.
"MY FOLKS" don't trust Biden & a Dem successor not to circumvent it. It does not limit Biden's abuse of TSP parole for the entire population of 4 nations. They don't trust DHS under Biden & Myorkis to select Immigration Judges who would deny asylum to economic migrants with the same rigor that current DoJ Judges do. It just gives Biden more $$$ & authority to streamline his current open border policy. It doesn't compel Biden to do anything.
I supported it because it's an emergency situation & it would force Biden to do something & a (R) President could use it to reduce the pull factor by using the detention & deportation authorities which Biden has refused to use.
What was the problem with Obama’s immigration policy? I don’t recall you championing it but I may have missed it. You are opposed to economic migrants?
I don't recall my criticizing Obama on this. It wasn't this bad then. The caravans were just starting. He did what he could & was blocked by some 9th Circuit Judgements. I was a big fan of Jeh Johnson. Obama took heat from the left for deporting so many. Johnson was for closing the asylum loophole.
I'm opposed to economic migrants being granted asylum. I'm in favor of work visas if they obtain them & enter legally.
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:13 pm
Our number of migrant entries now exceeds our national birth rate.
Yes, because our birthrate has been in the tank for YEARS and the COVID death rate didn't help either.
Whether you like it or not, we are likely going to need these workers to maintain growth.
It's akin to why we allowed all those Chinese, Irish and German immigrants in mid 19th Century because there were not enough native-born to provide labor for the economic engine. Expanded the pool in late 19th Century to Eastern/Southern Europe until the WASP politicians cut immigration significantly starting in the 1920s.
In fact, one of the reasons you have the alleged "easy to scam" asylum laws on the books is because those same folks made sure that European Jews in the 1930s could not emigrate to America even though they had a pretty good idea what the Nazis were doing. After the war and Holocaust asylum laws were changed to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.
If we legitimized the presence of everyone (other than the criminals) here now & allowed them to work, would we still have a labor shortage & demographic imbalance ? We'll never know unless we gain control of the border, use everyone who is here now, then assess how many & what skill levels we need to sustain our economy. I'm for expanded, controlled, migration rather than the Hunger Games criminally operated chaos we currently have. I don't consider work visas or green cards to be amnesty unless they lead to guaranteed citizenship, which needs to be fairly earned as legal immigrants do. We can't do any of that until we regain control of the border.
That's a similar line those WASPS fed everyone as the rationale from significantly curbing immigration in the 1920s - Bigotry and Eugenics
As for gaining control of the border - YOUR folks just deep-sixed legislation designed to do just that.
I accept the fact that most immigrants will be of non-European heritage -- as it should be.
It will be mostly extended family of immigrants already here.
"MY FOLKS" don't trust Biden & a Dem successor not to circumvent it. It does not limit Biden's abuse of TSP parole for the entire population of 4 nations. They don't trust DHS under Biden & Myorkis to select Immigration Judges who would deny asylum to economic migrants with the same rigor that current DoJ Judges do. It just gives Biden more $$$ & authority to streamline his current open border policy. It doesn't compel Biden to do anything.
I supported it because it's an emergency situation & it would force Biden to do something & a (R) President could use it to reduce the pull factor by using the detention & deportation authorities which Biden has refused to use.
What was the problem with Obama’s immigration policy? I don’t recall you championing it but I may have missed it. You are opposed to economic migrants?
I don't recall my criticizing Obama on this. It wasn't this bad then. The caravans were just starting. He did what he could & was blocked by some 9th Circuit Judgements. I was a big fan of Jeh Johnson. Obama took heat from the left for deporting so many. Johnson was for closing the asylum loophole.
I'm opposed to economic migrants being granted asylum. I'm in favor of work visas if they obtain them & enter legally.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 marked a radical break from U.S. immigration policies of the past. Since Congress restricted naturalized citizenship to "white persons" in 1790, laws restricted immigration from Asia and Africa, and gave preference to Northern and Western Europeans over Southern and Eastern Europeans.[11][12] During this time, most of those immigrating to the U.S. were Northern Europeans of Protestant faith and Western Africans who were human trafficked because of American chattel slavery.[13] This pattern shifted in the mid to late 19th century for both the Western and Eastern regions of the United States. There was a large influx of immigration from Asia in the Western region, while Eastern and Southern European immigrants settled more in the Eastern United States.[14]
Once the demographics of immigration were changing, there were policies put in place to reduce immigration to exclude individuals of certain ethnicities and races. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to stop the inflow of Chinese immigrants.[15] Then in 1917, Congress passed the Immigration Act; this act had prevented most immigration of non-North Western Europeans because it tested language understanding.[2] This act was followed by the Emergency Immigration Act of 1921, that placed a quota on immigration which used the rate of immigration in 1910 to mirror the immigration rate of all countries.[4] The Emergency Immigration Act of 1921 had helped bring along the Immigration Act of 1924 had permanently established the National Origins Formula as the basis of U.S. immigration policy, largely to restrict immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. According to the Office of the Historian of the U.S. Department of State, the purpose of the 1924 Act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity" by limiting immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.[16] At the time the U.S. had been recognized by many as the global leader in codified racism. The National Socialist Handbook for Law and Legislation of 1934–35, edited by the lawyer Hans Frank, contains a pivotal essay by Herbert Kier on the recommendations for race legislation which devoted a quarter of its pages to U.S. legislation, including race-based citizenship laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and immigration laws.[17] Adolf Hitler wrote of his admiration of America's immigration laws in Mein Kampf, saying:
The American Union categorically refuses the immigration of physically unhealthy elements, and simply excludes the immigration of certain races.[18]
In the 1960s, the United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to change its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that discriminated based on an individual's place of birth. Abroad, former military allies and new independent nations aimed to de-legitimize discriminatory immigration, naturalization and regulations through international organizations like the United Nations.[19] In the United States, the national-based formula had been under scrutiny for a number of years. In 1952, President Truman had directed the Commission on Immigration and Naturalization to conduct an investigation and produce a report on the current immigration regulations. The report, Whom We Shall Welcome, served as the blueprint for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.[20] At the height of the Civil Rights Movement the restrictive immigration laws were seen as an embarrassment.[8] At the time of the act's passing, many high-ranking politicians favored this bill to be passed, including President Lyndon B. Johnson.[21] However, the public did not reciprocate these feelings, which can be seen in a Gallup Organization poll in 1965 asking whether they were in favor of getting rid of the national quota act, and only 51 percent were in favor.[22] The act was pressured by high-ranking officials and interest groups to be passed, which it was passed on October 3, 1965.[23] President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century.[11]
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 did not make it fully illegal for the United States government to discriminate against individuals, which included members of the LGBTQ+ community to be prohibited under the legislation.[11] The Immigration and Naturalization Service continued to deny entry to prospective immigrants who are in the LGBTQ+ community on the grounds that they were "mentally defective", or had a "constitutional psychopathic inferiority" until the Immigration Act of 1990 rescinded the provision discriminating against members of the LGBT+ community.[24]
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:02 pm
If we don't like it, pass new laws:
In the 1960s, the United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to change its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that discriminated based on an individual's place of birth. ...President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century. ...the Immigration Act of 1990 rescinded the provision discriminating against members of the LGBT+ community.
They did a bad bad thing.
1965 was 60 years ago. 1990 was 35 years ago.
First, enforce the current laws.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:02 pm
If we don't like it, pass new laws:
In the 1960s, the United States faced both foreign and domestic pressures to change its nation-based formula, which was regarded as a system that discriminated based on an individual's place of birth. ...President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1965 act into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ending preferences for white immigrants dating to the 18th century. ...the Immigration Act of 1990 rescinded the provision discriminating against members of the LGBT+ community.
They did a bad bad thing.
1965 was 60 years ago. 1990 was 35 years ago.
First, enforce the current laws.
Why are these “laws” that you speak of often determined to be “unlawful”? Pass new laws that will stand up to judicial scrutiny is what you should also want.
The Trump administration has frequently argued that the increase in the number of families and children fleeing violence in their countries of origin and seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is a result of “loopholes” in U.S. immigration laws. This is a distortion of the reasons why an increased numbers of families and children are seeking protection in the United States, and is not an accurate characterization of the U.S. asylum process.
There has indeed been a sharp rise in asylum seekers from Central America’s Northern Triangle region (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that more individuals from the Northern Triangle region sought affirmative asylum in the United States between 2013 to 2015 than in the previous 15 years combined.
WOLA has been tracking violence and migration in Central America for nearly 15 years. Based on this experience, here are **seven facts **that are fundamental to understanding the rising number of asylum requests by Central American migrants.
1.) The number of asylum requests by Central Americans is rising because Northern Triangle countries are experiencing record levels of violence.
While the total number of migrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border is near its lowest level since the early 1970s, the number of apprehended unaccompanied children and families is again on the riseafter a dramatic drop in the months following Trump’s inauguration. This is a vulnerable population who, for the most part, are deliberately seeking out U.S. border security authorities and asking for protection. Affirmative requests for asylum of individuals from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have increased by 25 percent in fiscal year 2017 compared to 2016.
These people are fleeing for a reason. As White House Chief of Staff John Kelley once put it, the mass migration of children from Central America to the U.S.-Mexico border primarily consists of “[parents that] are trying to save their children.” The countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are facing unparalleled levels of violent crime, with El Salvador and Honduras ranking among the top five most violent countries in the world.
2.) Central Americans who cite fear of generalized violence in their asylum applications are not making a baseless claim—courts have found that, under the very terms of U.S. asylum law, applicants fleeing gang violence and other threats qualify for protection.
U.S. asylum law applies to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Those fleeing generalized crime and violence in their home country do not easily fit into these categories. Nevertheless, at times U.S. immigration judges have interpreted this law so as to grant asylum to Central American migrants who can demonstrate “a well-founded fear of persecution”within the standards described above, or who qualify for protectionunder the UN Convention Against Torture.
Due to the way that Central American gangs operate, in many cases women and children are targeted by these criminal groups precisely because they are women and children, which U.S. courts have repeatedly interpreted as them being persecuted due to “membership in a particular social group.” - Children and young adults are particularly vulnerable to death threats, as local gangs often try to forcibly recruit them, extort them, or in the case of girls, pressure them into relationships with gang members (see this short video series featuring Central American children who fled their home countries because of threats to their lives). Women and underage youths are attractive recruits for gangs because they can draw less attention from authorities when carrying out tasks such as smuggling drugs and weapons, or collecting extortion payments. Others may face persecution from gangs on account of their sexuality or gender, their religion, their resistance to gang activity, (e.g., refusing to pay extortion fees), or because one of their family members has ties to a gang. All of this can form the grounds for an asylum petition, as applicants are not fleeing “generalized” crime and violence in their home country.
Children and families who feel threatened flee their communities, often heading for the safety of the United States, because they have little confidence that corrupt police forces or other institutions can protect them. UNHCR interviews with Central American women seeking protection in the United States found that “the women consistently stated that police and other state law enforcement authorities were not able to provide sufficient protection from the violence.”
3.) Favorable outcomes for asylum applications from Central America largely depend on the immigration judge hearing the case and access to legal assistance.
Although many Central American families are fleeing similar situations, there’s a vast difference in how their cases are decided depending on the judge and the location of the court, according to an analysis of asylum decisions made by U.S. immigration judges. Whereas judges in New York grant asylum in more than 75 percent of the cases, in Atlanta almost 90 percent of asylum requests are denied. These disparities suggest that whether or not asylum is granted has less to do with the merits of a person’s case, and more to do with individual judge and where the case is heard.
A successful asylum application also largely depends on access to legal counsel. A 2015 study by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) showed that without legal representation, only 1.5 percent of women with children who had passed their credible fear interviews were given asylum in the United States. A recent study by TRAC also showed a concerning increase in the number of denials of asylum claims as well as in the number of asylum seekers handling their cases without legal representation. As the administration pushes to expand detention for asylum seekers, their access to legal counsel will be further limited.
4.) U.S. agencies have not collected strong evidence showing that the U.S. asylum system is “currently subject to rampant abuse and fraud,”as stated** by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in remarks to Congress on Oct. 12, 2017.**
Federal agencies have not collected data on the extent of possible asylum fraud, according to a 2015 report by the United States Government Accountability Office. That same report found that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Executive Office for Immigration Review have the tools they need to investigate fraud cases, although they lack a system for regularly assessing “fraud risks across the asylum process.” - A former immigration judge also recently challenged Session’s claim, noting all of the tools at the disposal of judges and DHS trial attorneys to determine evidence of potential fraud.
5.) Passing the “credible fear” test is not an “easy ticket to illegal entry in the United States,” as stated by Attorney General Sessions on Oct. 12, 2017.
Asylum seekers must pass what’s known as a “credible fear” interview conducted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officers in order to determine whether the applicant qualifies for an asylum hearing. Far from being an “easy ticket” to life in the United States, the “credible fear” test is just the first step in a series of obstacles faced by asylum seekers. In fact, the bar for passing the “credible fear” assessment is arguably already quite high when its original intent was to demand a low threshold of evidence from applicants.
Interpreting an asylum applicant’s failure to show up in immigration court as admission of a fraudulent claim is problematic for other reasons. Reports have shown that applicants can fail to show up for a wide range of reasons including that they never received notice of their appointment in the mail or it was sent to the wrong address, that they received inadequate information from U.S. officials when they were released at the border after processing, and lack of access to legal counsel. Furthermore, several studies have found that, contrary to Sessions’ assertions, many Central American asylum applications are rooted in legitimate claims. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) analysis of the screenings conducted by U.S. asylum officers, over 80 percent of women from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico who were screened on arrival at the U.S. border “were found to have a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum or protection under the Convention against Torture.”
6.) There is no evidence that criminal groups like the MS-13 are taking advantage of the U.S. asylum or immigration system to place gang leaders in the United States.
Of all unaccompanied minors apprehended at the southwest border since 2011, 0.02 percent were either suspected or confirmed to have ties to gangs in their home country, according to U.S. Border Patrol Acting Chief Carla Provost. That’s 56 minors out of 250,000.
The MS-13’s membership makes up less than one percent of all criminally active gang members in the United States and Puerto Rico, and there is no indication that the number of MS-13 members in the United States has increased in the past few years.
While there have been cases showing that the MS-13 leadership in El Salvador has been in contact with “cliques” in the United States, there is no evidence that criminal groups like the MS-13 are taking advantage of the flow of unaccompanied minors to place gang leaders in the United States. To reiterate: no federal agency or academic institution has analyzed or provided data showing that the surge of Central American migrants includes a significant number of youths tied to gangs.
Central America’s current struggle with gang violence can be traced, in part, back to U.S. policy. Between 1996 and 2002, the United States returned thousands of convicted criminals to politically and economically fragile countries in Central America. Gang members deported from Los Angeles took advantage of these conditions, andleveraged their more professional and unified structure to ramp up recruitment, consolidate small local youth gangs into more violent and more organized groups, and expand into the street gangs that control neighborhoods throughout Central America today.
7.) U.S. immigration officials have, over the years, failed to recognize circumstances in which large numbers of people are legitimately seeking political asylum, and thus have contributed to humanitarian tragedies.
From turning back German Jewish refugees in the late 1930s, todenying asylum status to Haitians fleeing the Duvalier dictatorship, toopposing the asylum claims of Salvadorans fleeing political violence in the 1980s, successive administrations have repeatedly underestimated the seriousness of human rights abuses, with political calculations overtaking humanitarian concerns. During El Salvador’s and Guatemala’s civil wars, now widely recognized to have been characterized by widespread human rights abuses and where the repressive governments’ were backed by the United States, the United States rejected almost all asylum claims from these countries. In 1984, only three percent of the asylum cases from these countries were granted, in contrast to much higher numbers of approvals for citizens of countries whose governments were considered hostile to the United States (such as Iranians and Afghans fleeing the Soviet invasion); an outcome which had more to do with political decisions rather than assessing the merits of the claims themselves.
In recent years, there are multiple, documented cases of Central Americans deported from the United States who have been killed as a result of gang violence, although we have no idea of what the actual scale could be. As was discussed previously, the vast differences in asylum decisions made by U.S. immigration judges also often have more to do with the judge than with the case itself. This is highlighted in an October 2017 Reuters report, in which two women from Honduras tell similar stories about fear for their lives and the lives of their children, and yet one is granted relief in the U.S. and the other was ordered deported. Such cases illustrate the arbitrary nature of these decisions which can be the difference between life and death for the people involved.
The growing backlog of cases forces judges to make rapid decision with little resources. Compounding this situation is the Trump administration’s decision in July 2017 to cancel the annual week-long training course to prepare judges for ongoing changes in case law, ethics and other areas. As one immigration judge told Quartz, her job was like “doing death-penalty cases in a traffic-court setting.”
old salt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 8:13 pm
Our number of migrant entries now exceeds our national birth rate.
Yes, because our birthrate has been in the tank for YEARS and the COVID death rate didn't help either.
Whether you like it or not, we are likely going to need these workers to maintain growth.
It's akin to why we allowed all those Chinese, Irish and German immigrants in mid 19th Century because there were not enough native-born to provide labor for the economic engine. Expanded the pool in late 19th Century to Eastern/Southern Europe until the WASP politicians cut immigration significantly starting in the 1920s.
In fact, one of the reasons you have the alleged "easy to scam" asylum laws on the books is because those same folks made sure that European Jews in the 1930s could not emigrate to America even though they had a pretty good idea what the Nazis were doing. After the war and Holocaust asylum laws were changed to prevent another similar tragedy from occurring.
If we legitimized the presence of everyone (other than the criminals) here now & allowed them to work, would we still have a labor shortage & demographic imbalance ? We'll never know unless we gain control of the border, use everyone who is here now, then assess how many & what skill levels we need to sustain our economy. I'm for expanded, controlled, migration rather than the Hunger Games criminally operated chaos we currently have. I don't consider work visas or green cards to be amnesty unless they lead to guaranteed citizenship, which needs to be fairly earned as legal immigrants do. We can't do any of that until we regain control of the border.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:22 pm
The Trump administration has frequently argued that the increase in the number of families and children fleeing violence in their countries of origin and seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is a result of “loopholes” in U.S. immigration laws. This is a distortion of the reasons why an increased numbers of families and children are seeking protection in the United States, and is not an accurate characterization of the U.S. asylum process.
There has indeed been a sharp rise in asylum seekers from Central America’s Northern Triangle region (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that more individuals from the Northern Triangle region sought affirmative asylum in the United States between 2013 to 2015 than in the previous 15 years combined.
WOLA has been tracking violence and migration in Central America for nearly 15 years.
The growing backlog of cases forces judges to make rapid decision with little resources. Compounding this situation is the Trump administration’s decision in July 2017 to cancel the annual week-long training course to prepare judges for ongoing changes in case law, ethics and other areas.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:22 pm
The Trump administration has frequently argued that the increase in the number of families and children fleeing violence in their countries of origin and seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is a result of “loopholes” in U.S. immigration laws. This is a distortion of the reasons why an increased numbers of families and children are seeking protection in the United States, and is not an accurate characterization of the U.S. asylum process.
There has indeed been a sharp rise in asylum seekers from Central America’s Northern Triangle region (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that more individuals from the Northern Triangle region sought affirmative asylum in the United States between 2013 to 2015 than in the previous 15 years combined.
WOLA has been tracking violence and migration in Central America for nearly 15 years.
The growing backlog of cases forces judges to make rapid decision with little resources. Compounding this situation is the Trump administration’s decision in July 2017 to cancel the annual week-long training course to prepare judges for ongoing changes in case law, ethics and other areas.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:22 pm
The Trump administration has frequently argued that the increase in the number of families and children fleeing violence in their countries of origin and seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is a result of “loopholes” in U.S. immigration laws. This is a distortion of the reasons why an increased numbers of families and children are seeking protection in the United States, and is not an accurate characterization of the U.S. asylum process.
There has indeed been a sharp rise in asylum seekers from Central America’s Northern Triangle region (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that more individuals from the Northern Triangle region sought affirmative asylum in the United States between 2013 to 2015 than in the previous 15 years combined.
WOLA has been tracking violence and migration in Central America for nearly 15 years.
The growing backlog of cases forces judges to make rapid decision with little resources. Compounding this situation is the Trump administration’s decision in July 2017 to cancel the annual week-long training course to prepare judges for ongoing changes in case law, ethics and other areas.
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 8:22 pm
The Trump administration has frequently argued that the increase in the number of families and children fleeing violence in their countries of origin and seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is a result of “loopholes” in U.S. immigration laws. This is a distortion of the reasons why an increased numbers of families and children are seeking protection in the United States, and is not an accurate characterization of the U.S. asylum process.
There has indeed been a sharp rise in asylum seekers from Central America’s Northern Triangle region (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reports that more individuals from the Northern Triangle region sought affirmative asylum in the United States between 2013 to 2015 than in the previous 15 years combined.
WOLA has been tracking violence and migration in Central America for nearly 15 years.
The growing backlog of cases forces judges to make rapid decision with little resources. Compounding this situation is the Trump administration’s decision in July 2017 to cancel the annual week-long training course to prepare judges for ongoing changes in case law, ethics and other areas.
This is LITERALLY what I just told you, and have been telling you since our attention turned to Venezuelans in Denver.
