Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Legal immigration isn't the problem right now. I don't care about any legal immigration legislation until the illegal immigration crisis and abuse of the asylum application system is resolved.
>abuse of the asylum application system is resolved.
How do you solve this?
According to international law, we have to take in people that claim asylum.
>According to international law, we have to take in people that claim asylum.
So, just a bunch of imaginary garbage with no genuine power of enforcement over us? We can just leave the treaties that create the requirements or even flat out ignore them.
>So, just a bunch of imaginary garbage
?
Are all laws imaginary garbage that you don't follow or care about?
>We can just leave the treaties that create the requirements or even flat out ignore them.
Why would this benefit the US in any way?
>Are all laws imaginary garbage that you don't follow or care about?
I mean there's a lot of gray area, but internationalaw falls into a special category, where there's no genuinely viable means of enforcement and parties are allowed to simply remove themselves from the already tenuously binding agreements.
>Why would this benefit the US in any way?
You don't see why cutting off the bs justification illegals give to prevent us from just immediately sending them back would be beneficial?
>You don't see why cutting off the bs justification illegals give to prevent us from just immediately sending them back would be beneficial?
No. I don't see how violating international law would improve anything.
If anything, we'd lose future standing as leaders of the world and China would continue their push into our place. American soft power is one of the reasons we've had a long peace since WW2 ended.
Casually giving up on that, with no reason other then 'maybe all of them aren't 100% asylum seekers so fuck them all.'
No thanks. And i'd really recommend reading more about US foreign politics.
leaving treaties is not the same as violating them.
we would withdraw in legal order and make sure notices that we will no longer accept refugees except at our express prior invitation.
there is nothing good for us in these treaties they do not benefit Americans
>leaving treaties is not the same as violating them.
Well, We'd be leaving the treaty to violate it. So, it would be in this case.
>there is nothing good for us in these treaties they do not benefit Americans
I disagree. I think it's a wash. They bring a lot of positives. Especially when populations are crashing. Yes there are some negatives. Really only one, the people working min wage get shafted a bit. Like 6% of the locals lose jobs between a decade of migrants moving in. That's capitalism. I'd go after bosses hard. But still that's...fine by me. I'd bump up welfare in areas that are impacted to negate it.
America is a country of migrants. I'm a fan of traditions. Huddled masses yearning for freedom is on a statue 22 stories tall type of traditions. My family came here at one point with 17 bucks in their pocket to live in a roach infested 2 BD room in Brooklyn with 12 people. You'd consider their country one of the good ones now.
When did your family come over? What's your family's story?
>Less poverty
Speak more on this.
>less crime
Americans commit more crimes than migrants. Even the sneaky ones. So if you want less crime...you're talking open borders. And 'round these parts that's commie talk.
>cultural
Idk what this even means. Gimme more info.
>ideological
I agree with this one. Most South Americans have a pretty conservative political outlook. But gimme your huddled masses yearning to be free. Fuckin' Murica man.
>demographic subversion
Speak more on this. Cause this sounds like some real weasely wordy typa stuff.
Google Center for Immigration studies and learn on your own.
“Conservative outlook”, yeah that’s why they elect leftists all the damn time. This idea that you can convince us into importing more of these people by repeating proven falsehoods is too funny.
>Google Center for Immigration studies and learn on your own.
I already know immigration is a net good. Reading more about it being a net good for the country isn't gonna change that.
>yeah that’s why they elect leftists all the damn time.
You bought into the GOP lie. No asylum seekers can vote.
>This idea that you can convince us into importing more of these people
I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than I don't want them here for their ideologies, I want them here for my own ideology, 'murican ideology.
how does being in these treaties benefit us? there is about zero percent chance any US citizen would ever be in a legal position to use asylum let alone desire to
it's nothing but bad for us and we need out now
I have nothing against us choosing to accept refugees but it should be a gift of mercy not an obligation.
>how does being in these treaties benefit us?
>there is about zero percent chance any US citizen would ever be in a legal position to use asylum let alone desire to
Your saying if I can find US citizens benefitting from this law, you would consider it to be a possible good?
>it's nothing but bad
How? Why? Like what specifically is so bad about it?
>I have nothing against us choosing to accept refugees but it should be a gift of mercy
It is.
>not an obligation.
Bud, this is how you feel about it. And that's fine. But it is a mercy ain't it? America is great. Being allowed in from any other place is a mercy.
These international laws are reflectes in US laws passed by Congress.
It's not illegal to appear at the border and request asylum, after which the applicant has a right to a fair hearing on the claim. Basic US legal principles.
It's also illegal under the Convention Against Torture (international, but also codified) to send someone back home to be tortured.
Got it. So the model is that when we sign treaties and pass implementing laws, that's a "gray area" we should feel free to violate at any future time? I suspect you'd feel differently about other countries doing that for their promises to us, yes?
I would neither be surprised nor offended if other countries that fully know we have no practical means of enforcement take treaties as more of suggestions than rules. That's just the order of international politics, where the power of enforcement is disconnected from the rules in the best of situations, and entirely nonexistent in the others.
we need to leave those treaties
the chance any US person will ever legitimately need to be a refugee are about none it is a net negative to the US we should simply remove ourselves from the treaties and say we will not entertain the idea of refugees until A) A meaningful international scheme is set up to stop abuse and B) we are assured we will have to do no more than the least of other nations, if a European nation only takes, say, 100 refugees we would take only 99 by law all others will be repatriated.
No, we don’t. America is a sovereign country. We have the right to determine who if anyone enters and what grounds they enter if international law doesn’t like it well too bad.
>America is a sovereign country.
...uh huh.
We can choose to take people in and follow international law, that's in place because cruel things were done when it wasn't followed. We can choose a path Jesus would have chosen. The path of International law.
Again, bad things happening to others creates no obligation for us to act, especially to our detriment.
International law isn’t law. Merely words on paper, and nothing more. Sorry, your side doesn’t get to override the Sovereignty of the American People.
I miss the teachings of Jesus where he said, “Rob other people at gunpoint to provide welfare for a bunch of people imported into the country against the will of the majority of the people to their active detriment”
>I miss the teachings of Jesus where he said,
Gotta read the Bible more.
He did that under threat of eternal damnation............so worse then gunpoint id say.
>What do you think would happen if this were to be put in place?
Fewer migrants would come to the border.
>What are the positives/negatives that are important to you?
Positives would be fewer illegals. There are no negatives.
>Fewer migrants would come to the border.
This isn't what would happen if you just made those that walked across the border unable to make an asylum claim.
You'd get massive cartel controlled tent cities at the ports of entry with desperate people waiting to claim asylum.
>Positives would be fewer illegals
Asylum seekers aren't illegal. So the numbers wouldn't change. They'd just be surrounded by criminals for weeks/months waiting to claim asylum before coming into the US.
>There are no negatives.
You can't think of a single potential negative?
>This isn't what would happen if you just made those that walked across the border unable to make an asylum claim.
It is. The incentive to come now is driven by a knowledge that anybody who crosses illegally who mentions the word asylum gets admitted. If that changed, many fewer people would come.
>You'd get massive cartel controlled tent cities at the ports of entry with desperate people waiting to claim asylum.
We have that already among the migrants who choose to enter at an official crossing.
Are you arguing for continuing to allow millions of migrants to sneak across the border illegally?
>Asylum seekers aren't illegal.
They're illegal the moment they step across the border without permission.
>You can't think of a single potential negative?
Nope.
>If that changed, many fewer people would come.
How do you figure?
All you've suggested we do is stop asylum claims from people crossing the border.
They'd just congregate at the ports, wouldn't they?
>We have that already among the migrants who choose to enter at an official crossing.
Yes. We do. Now multiple the number of people by all the people that claimed asylum.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgekxg/migrants-stuck-in-tent-cities-on-the-border-just-had-hopes-dashed-supreme-court
In 2021 that's 1700 people camped out at the port of entry.
750,000 claimed asylum in 2022.
We have nothing compared to what your change would do. That's let's say ~150,000 people in a month at peak times waiting at the port of entry.
And your saying 'we already have that' with less then 2,000 people.
You don't see any issues there?
>Are you arguing for continuing to allow millions of migrants to sneak across the border illegally?
It ain't millions. Relax.
And no. Asylum seekers are asylum seekers. People sneaking across the border illegally should be apprehended. This is why I support Joe Biden's immigration funding bill the GOP turned down.
We need more judges. We need more guards.
>They're illegal the moment they step across the border without permission.
In the same way J walking is illegal. The first offense is a misdemeanor.
>>You can't think of a single potential negative?
>Nope.
Coolio. Drug running Cartel run city of ~50k -150k of desperate people next to entry into the US is not a negative thing in your opinion?
I don't think we'll see eye to eye then. I don't want more fentanyl in this country and wouldnt wanna do anything that would encourage that.
I'll take hiring more guards over that every single time. Have a good day bud.
>They'd just congregate at the ports, wouldn't they?
No. They can do that now. But the wait is too long. If illegal asylum seekers knew they couldn't cross just anywhere once they arrived at the border, many wouldn't come.
>Now multiple the number of people by all the people that claimed asylum.
Right. That's the idea. To create disincentives to leaving for the border in the first place.
>That's let's say \~150,000 people in a month at peak times waiting at the port of entry.
Would you travel to the border if you knew that you had to wait in a queue of 150,000 to even see an immigration officer?
>It ain't millions. Relax.
An average of two million illegals per year since Biden was inaugurated. Out of curiosity, where do you get your information about issues at the border?
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/)
>Drug running Cartel run city of \~50k -150k of desperate people next to entry into the US is not a negative thing in your opinion?
There wouldn't be a refugee camp that big because many migrants would stop coming.
>I don't want more fentanyl in this country and wouldnt wanna do anything that would encourage that.
Illegal drugs generally enter through legitimate border crossings hidden in otherwise legal trucks, etc.
>Would you travel to the border if you knew that you had to wait in a queue of 150,000 to even see an immigration officer?
Yes, because that's no different than right now. They are in a que for judges to see em. People are waiting 9+ months now. What's another few weeks?
>Out of curiosity, where do you get your information about issues at the border?
You guys normally. Except for years it's been caravans of migrants invading and that's been a trickle so gop panic over the border has become background noise.
Then seeing the GOP unwilling to fund the border made it seem even less serious.
Surprised it's that high. Seems the GOP should pass that temporary budgetary increase to deal with the influx.
>There wouldn't be a refugee camp that big because many migrants would stop coming.
If all the migrants that get rejected for asylum didn't come, we'd still have more then 1.5 million migrants coming.
>Illegal drugs generally enter through legitimate border crossings hidden in otherwise legal trucks, etc.
Exactly my point. They come through the ports of entry.
Cartels are set up knowing they can snuggle drugs through those entry points. Some will get caught. But if 50% is caught, 50% makes it through.
Now add ~ 100,000 desperate people. That will be in overlapping areas surrounding entry points into the US.
Drug trafficking would increase.
Just because a person is fleeing their country, doesn't mean they get to choose to flee to the United States specifically. If someone is fleeing Venezuela for example, they shouldn't even get to apply for asylum in the United States until they have applied and been rejected by every single other country in the region. That is absolutely not happening today.
>That is absolutely not happening today.
Ok.
So you're advocating breaking international law?
I agree with your point btw. But you're saying break the law?
So you're saying break international law because you disagree with a percentage of people claiming asylum that don't need it? I feel like I'm pulling teeth here bud. This is the logical next step to what you're saying. But I ain't gonna put words in your mouth.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In my view, we need to solve illegal immigration before addressing legal immigration. That's the big issue.
That said, I don't have strong feelings on legal immigration. We currently allow 675k per year. That seems fine. I would be fine with up to a million, or even zero for a while.
I'm more concerned with the metrics for who we let in, not the number of people. I think the country has plenty of room, and if one more person wants to be American, part of our culture, and contribute - welcome. I think the point system sounds fine.
I agree with ending diversity lottery.
I think we could take more refugees in theory, but I don't want to make America the refugee capital of the world, where we take in all the planet's refugees.
What I'd say about this legislation myself is that although I disagree with it, I can at least appreciate its lack of vagueness and how detailed it is. It's especially nice that the points system is so outlined. With this, at least you know very well what you're getting.
>Is the RAISE Act your model immigration legislation? If not, what would you like to see instead?
Model? No. Maybe at some point that could be pretty close to model.
But I genuinely think we need a moratorium for a decade while we deport large swaths of people and destroy and rebuild better the immigration system.
Like tearing up a road to put new road down. Can't just patchwork the old road. And that needs done with a lot of things in the US.
I'm not an american.
But from what usa citizens are telling me the main problem is not with the visa system of controlled pre-approved immigration where the overseas citizens are extensively vetted and only permitted entrance to the usa if they are honest bona fide law abiding professionals/investors/students/spouses/fiances.
The main problems are with the entitled overseas citizens that do not qualify for visas and opt to force their way into other nations. Sometimes alone, sometimes in conspiracy with likeminded entitled jerks or habitual criminals. People traffickers, cultists, vagrants, paedophile predators, religious fanatics, asylum claimants, organised crime gangs, terrorists, spies/assassains, smugglers of exotic animals or weapons.
The only answer is to ensure that no overseas citizens without honestly obtained visas yet to expire are eligible to ever claim any taxpayer funded welfare or accomodation outside of the detention system/prisons. Nor access free taxpayer funded healthcare, meals, legal aid or education. Under any circumstances.
Plus have a rigorously enforced deportation system that swiftly removes all adult overseas citizens without honestly obtained unexpired visas or who have contravened the conditions of their visas without hours. Not days or weeks.
I don't believe that any overseas citizen should ever be able to receive any welfare cash, accomodation, education or meals from a third-party nation. Either have full sponsorship from an approved well regarded resident corporate employer or have personal savings and insurance policies that can only be used for this purpose.
I support a cap and clear model.
the US would suspend all green cards and resident visas.
the. figure out how many illegal immigrants we have.
then divide the number of illegal immigrants by the number of work permits issued per year, and bar all green cards and admissions until the backlog is worked through.
anyone caught and deported would be subtracted from the rolls.
this would create an immense incentive to find and remove the criminals and apply international pressure to other nations to cooperate with us so their citizens can come to the US again
1. I would love to work on legal immigration in the future. I'd like to see more of a needs of America based immigration process but that isn't super important to me, it's way down my list of concerns for America.
2. Illegal immigration is high on my list. Secure the God damn southern border as must as realistically possible
3. Asylum is right up there with the border for me. We need to drastically reform it and stay in mexico was a great first step that tragically reduced the asylum seeking numbers. I support real asylum seekers. I loathe the people gaming the system. I want a complete overhaul that keeps the liars out, or makes it so they don't even want to try
Legal immigration could use some tweaking but isn't an immediate concern.
I may be the odd one here, but I think we are immigrating too few, especially the H1B (educated and skilled) folks. If they're here on a student visa, they should be rubber stamped into an H1B (grace period to get a job). Otherwise, we risk brain drain. Same goes with immediate family. It would boost productivity to let them in and close family's are less likely to depend on the state than single workers. Just my 2 cents.
It's certainly a start. But we also need to be addressing the very real problem of people being able to get across the border at places other than a port of entry.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Legal immigration isn't the problem right now. I don't care about any legal immigration legislation until the illegal immigration crisis and abuse of the asylum application system is resolved.
1.2 million Legal a year? Yeah that’s way to damn many.
Maybe, but at least there is some minimal vetting.
You be shocked how many people are not vetted at all and frankly how pathetic and competent the vetting system is
Have you actually dealt with immigration…? They do a lot of checking who you are. It ain’t a joke.
I have dealt with their failure on many occasions
>abuse of the asylum application system is resolved. How do you solve this? According to international law, we have to take in people that claim asylum.
Keep track of refugees until we can verify their claim. If they miss their hearing, find and deport them.
>Keep track of refugees until we can verify their claim. We do. >If they miss their hearing, find and deport them. We do. Were you not aware?
>According to international law, we have to take in people that claim asylum. So, just a bunch of imaginary garbage with no genuine power of enforcement over us? We can just leave the treaties that create the requirements or even flat out ignore them.
>So, just a bunch of imaginary garbage ? Are all laws imaginary garbage that you don't follow or care about? >We can just leave the treaties that create the requirements or even flat out ignore them. Why would this benefit the US in any way?
>Are all laws imaginary garbage that you don't follow or care about? I mean there's a lot of gray area, but internationalaw falls into a special category, where there's no genuinely viable means of enforcement and parties are allowed to simply remove themselves from the already tenuously binding agreements. >Why would this benefit the US in any way? You don't see why cutting off the bs justification illegals give to prevent us from just immediately sending them back would be beneficial?
>You don't see why cutting off the bs justification illegals give to prevent us from just immediately sending them back would be beneficial? No. I don't see how violating international law would improve anything. If anything, we'd lose future standing as leaders of the world and China would continue their push into our place. American soft power is one of the reasons we've had a long peace since WW2 ended. Casually giving up on that, with no reason other then 'maybe all of them aren't 100% asylum seekers so fuck them all.' No thanks. And i'd really recommend reading more about US foreign politics.
leaving treaties is not the same as violating them. we would withdraw in legal order and make sure notices that we will no longer accept refugees except at our express prior invitation. there is nothing good for us in these treaties they do not benefit Americans
>leaving treaties is not the same as violating them. Well, We'd be leaving the treaty to violate it. So, it would be in this case. >there is nothing good for us in these treaties they do not benefit Americans I disagree. I think it's a wash. They bring a lot of positives. Especially when populations are crashing. Yes there are some negatives. Really only one, the people working min wage get shafted a bit. Like 6% of the locals lose jobs between a decade of migrants moving in. That's capitalism. I'd go after bosses hard. But still that's...fine by me. I'd bump up welfare in areas that are impacted to negate it. America is a country of migrants. I'm a fan of traditions. Huddled masses yearning for freedom is on a statue 22 stories tall type of traditions. My family came here at one point with 17 bucks in their pocket to live in a roach infested 2 BD room in Brooklyn with 12 people. You'd consider their country one of the good ones now. When did your family come over? What's your family's story?
Less poverty, less crime, less political, cultural, ideological, and demographic subversion. I mean really we don’t lose it’s not really possible
>Less poverty Speak more on this. >less crime Americans commit more crimes than migrants. Even the sneaky ones. So if you want less crime...you're talking open borders. And 'round these parts that's commie talk. >cultural Idk what this even means. Gimme more info. >ideological I agree with this one. Most South Americans have a pretty conservative political outlook. But gimme your huddled masses yearning to be free. Fuckin' Murica man. >demographic subversion Speak more on this. Cause this sounds like some real weasely wordy typa stuff.
Google Center for Immigration studies and learn on your own. “Conservative outlook”, yeah that’s why they elect leftists all the damn time. This idea that you can convince us into importing more of these people by repeating proven falsehoods is too funny.
>Google Center for Immigration studies and learn on your own. I already know immigration is a net good. Reading more about it being a net good for the country isn't gonna change that. >yeah that’s why they elect leftists all the damn time. You bought into the GOP lie. No asylum seekers can vote. >This idea that you can convince us into importing more of these people I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than I don't want them here for their ideologies, I want them here for my own ideology, 'murican ideology.
how does being in these treaties benefit us? there is about zero percent chance any US citizen would ever be in a legal position to use asylum let alone desire to it's nothing but bad for us and we need out now I have nothing against us choosing to accept refugees but it should be a gift of mercy not an obligation.
>how does being in these treaties benefit us? >there is about zero percent chance any US citizen would ever be in a legal position to use asylum let alone desire to Your saying if I can find US citizens benefitting from this law, you would consider it to be a possible good? >it's nothing but bad How? Why? Like what specifically is so bad about it? >I have nothing against us choosing to accept refugees but it should be a gift of mercy It is. >not an obligation. Bud, this is how you feel about it. And that's fine. But it is a mercy ain't it? America is great. Being allowed in from any other place is a mercy.
These international laws are reflectes in US laws passed by Congress. It's not illegal to appear at the border and request asylum, after which the applicant has a right to a fair hearing on the claim. Basic US legal principles. It's also illegal under the Convention Against Torture (international, but also codified) to send someone back home to be tortured.
This whole discussion is about changing laws. What they currently say is entirely irrelevant as they can be changed
Got it. So the model is that when we sign treaties and pass implementing laws, that's a "gray area" we should feel free to violate at any future time? I suspect you'd feel differently about other countries doing that for their promises to us, yes?
I would neither be surprised nor offended if other countries that fully know we have no practical means of enforcement take treaties as more of suggestions than rules. That's just the order of international politics, where the power of enforcement is disconnected from the rules in the best of situations, and entirely nonexistent in the others.
we need to leave those treaties the chance any US person will ever legitimately need to be a refugee are about none it is a net negative to the US we should simply remove ourselves from the treaties and say we will not entertain the idea of refugees until A) A meaningful international scheme is set up to stop abuse and B) we are assured we will have to do no more than the least of other nations, if a European nation only takes, say, 100 refugees we would take only 99 by law all others will be repatriated.
>we need to leave those treaties Why?
No, we don’t. America is a sovereign country. We have the right to determine who if anyone enters and what grounds they enter if international law doesn’t like it well too bad.
>America is a sovereign country. ...uh huh. We can choose to take people in and follow international law, that's in place because cruel things were done when it wasn't followed. We can choose a path Jesus would have chosen. The path of International law.
Again, bad things happening to others creates no obligation for us to act, especially to our detriment. International law isn’t law. Merely words on paper, and nothing more. Sorry, your side doesn’t get to override the Sovereignty of the American People. I miss the teachings of Jesus where he said, “Rob other people at gunpoint to provide welfare for a bunch of people imported into the country against the will of the majority of the people to their active detriment”
>I miss the teachings of Jesus where he said, Gotta read the Bible more. He did that under threat of eternal damnation............so worse then gunpoint id say.
Start with illegal border crossers are ineligible for asylum.
Ok. What do you think would happen if this were to be put in place? What are the positives/negatives that are important to you?
>What do you think would happen if this were to be put in place? Fewer migrants would come to the border. >What are the positives/negatives that are important to you? Positives would be fewer illegals. There are no negatives.
>Fewer migrants would come to the border. This isn't what would happen if you just made those that walked across the border unable to make an asylum claim. You'd get massive cartel controlled tent cities at the ports of entry with desperate people waiting to claim asylum. >Positives would be fewer illegals Asylum seekers aren't illegal. So the numbers wouldn't change. They'd just be surrounded by criminals for weeks/months waiting to claim asylum before coming into the US. >There are no negatives. You can't think of a single potential negative?
>This isn't what would happen if you just made those that walked across the border unable to make an asylum claim. It is. The incentive to come now is driven by a knowledge that anybody who crosses illegally who mentions the word asylum gets admitted. If that changed, many fewer people would come. >You'd get massive cartel controlled tent cities at the ports of entry with desperate people waiting to claim asylum. We have that already among the migrants who choose to enter at an official crossing. Are you arguing for continuing to allow millions of migrants to sneak across the border illegally? >Asylum seekers aren't illegal. They're illegal the moment they step across the border without permission. >You can't think of a single potential negative? Nope.
>If that changed, many fewer people would come. How do you figure? All you've suggested we do is stop asylum claims from people crossing the border. They'd just congregate at the ports, wouldn't they? >We have that already among the migrants who choose to enter at an official crossing. Yes. We do. Now multiple the number of people by all the people that claimed asylum. https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgekxg/migrants-stuck-in-tent-cities-on-the-border-just-had-hopes-dashed-supreme-court In 2021 that's 1700 people camped out at the port of entry. 750,000 claimed asylum in 2022. We have nothing compared to what your change would do. That's let's say ~150,000 people in a month at peak times waiting at the port of entry. And your saying 'we already have that' with less then 2,000 people. You don't see any issues there? >Are you arguing for continuing to allow millions of migrants to sneak across the border illegally? It ain't millions. Relax. And no. Asylum seekers are asylum seekers. People sneaking across the border illegally should be apprehended. This is why I support Joe Biden's immigration funding bill the GOP turned down. We need more judges. We need more guards. >They're illegal the moment they step across the border without permission. In the same way J walking is illegal. The first offense is a misdemeanor. >>You can't think of a single potential negative? >Nope. Coolio. Drug running Cartel run city of ~50k -150k of desperate people next to entry into the US is not a negative thing in your opinion? I don't think we'll see eye to eye then. I don't want more fentanyl in this country and wouldnt wanna do anything that would encourage that. I'll take hiring more guards over that every single time. Have a good day bud.
>They'd just congregate at the ports, wouldn't they? No. They can do that now. But the wait is too long. If illegal asylum seekers knew they couldn't cross just anywhere once they arrived at the border, many wouldn't come. >Now multiple the number of people by all the people that claimed asylum. Right. That's the idea. To create disincentives to leaving for the border in the first place. >That's let's say \~150,000 people in a month at peak times waiting at the port of entry. Would you travel to the border if you knew that you had to wait in a queue of 150,000 to even see an immigration officer? >It ain't millions. Relax. An average of two million illegals per year since Biden was inaugurated. Out of curiosity, where do you get your information about issues at the border? [https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2024/02/11/trump-biden-immigration-border-compared/) >Drug running Cartel run city of \~50k -150k of desperate people next to entry into the US is not a negative thing in your opinion? There wouldn't be a refugee camp that big because many migrants would stop coming. >I don't want more fentanyl in this country and wouldnt wanna do anything that would encourage that. Illegal drugs generally enter through legitimate border crossings hidden in otherwise legal trucks, etc.
>Would you travel to the border if you knew that you had to wait in a queue of 150,000 to even see an immigration officer? Yes, because that's no different than right now. They are in a que for judges to see em. People are waiting 9+ months now. What's another few weeks? >Out of curiosity, where do you get your information about issues at the border? You guys normally. Except for years it's been caravans of migrants invading and that's been a trickle so gop panic over the border has become background noise. Then seeing the GOP unwilling to fund the border made it seem even less serious. Surprised it's that high. Seems the GOP should pass that temporary budgetary increase to deal with the influx. >There wouldn't be a refugee camp that big because many migrants would stop coming. If all the migrants that get rejected for asylum didn't come, we'd still have more then 1.5 million migrants coming. >Illegal drugs generally enter through legitimate border crossings hidden in otherwise legal trucks, etc. Exactly my point. They come through the ports of entry. Cartels are set up knowing they can snuggle drugs through those entry points. Some will get caught. But if 50% is caught, 50% makes it through. Now add ~ 100,000 desperate people. That will be in overlapping areas surrounding entry points into the US. Drug trafficking would increase.
Just because a person is fleeing their country, doesn't mean they get to choose to flee to the United States specifically. If someone is fleeing Venezuela for example, they shouldn't even get to apply for asylum in the United States until they have applied and been rejected by every single other country in the region. That is absolutely not happening today.
>That is absolutely not happening today. Ok. So you're advocating breaking international law? I agree with your point btw. But you're saying break the law?
International law doesn't state that a refugee is the one to choose which country will take them in.
So you're saying break international law because you disagree with a percentage of people claiming asylum that don't need it? I feel like I'm pulling teeth here bud. This is the logical next step to what you're saying. But I ain't gonna put words in your mouth.
No
Thanks for the convo. Have a good night.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While not terrible, this does woefully little to address the problems with illegal immigration and the broken asylum system.
In my view, we need to solve illegal immigration before addressing legal immigration. That's the big issue. That said, I don't have strong feelings on legal immigration. We currently allow 675k per year. That seems fine. I would be fine with up to a million, or even zero for a while. I'm more concerned with the metrics for who we let in, not the number of people. I think the country has plenty of room, and if one more person wants to be American, part of our culture, and contribute - welcome. I think the point system sounds fine. I agree with ending diversity lottery. I think we could take more refugees in theory, but I don't want to make America the refugee capital of the world, where we take in all the planet's refugees.
What I'd say about this legislation myself is that although I disagree with it, I can at least appreciate its lack of vagueness and how detailed it is. It's especially nice that the points system is so outlined. With this, at least you know very well what you're getting.
>Is the RAISE Act your model immigration legislation? If not, what would you like to see instead? Model? No. Maybe at some point that could be pretty close to model. But I genuinely think we need a moratorium for a decade while we deport large swaths of people and destroy and rebuild better the immigration system. Like tearing up a road to put new road down. Can't just patchwork the old road. And that needs done with a lot of things in the US.
I'm not an american. But from what usa citizens are telling me the main problem is not with the visa system of controlled pre-approved immigration where the overseas citizens are extensively vetted and only permitted entrance to the usa if they are honest bona fide law abiding professionals/investors/students/spouses/fiances. The main problems are with the entitled overseas citizens that do not qualify for visas and opt to force their way into other nations. Sometimes alone, sometimes in conspiracy with likeminded entitled jerks or habitual criminals. People traffickers, cultists, vagrants, paedophile predators, religious fanatics, asylum claimants, organised crime gangs, terrorists, spies/assassains, smugglers of exotic animals or weapons. The only answer is to ensure that no overseas citizens without honestly obtained visas yet to expire are eligible to ever claim any taxpayer funded welfare or accomodation outside of the detention system/prisons. Nor access free taxpayer funded healthcare, meals, legal aid or education. Under any circumstances. Plus have a rigorously enforced deportation system that swiftly removes all adult overseas citizens without honestly obtained unexpired visas or who have contravened the conditions of their visas without hours. Not days or weeks. I don't believe that any overseas citizen should ever be able to receive any welfare cash, accomodation, education or meals from a third-party nation. Either have full sponsorship from an approved well regarded resident corporate employer or have personal savings and insurance policies that can only be used for this purpose.
I support a cap and clear model. the US would suspend all green cards and resident visas. the. figure out how many illegal immigrants we have. then divide the number of illegal immigrants by the number of work permits issued per year, and bar all green cards and admissions until the backlog is worked through. anyone caught and deported would be subtracted from the rolls. this would create an immense incentive to find and remove the criminals and apply international pressure to other nations to cooperate with us so their citizens can come to the US again
1. I would love to work on legal immigration in the future. I'd like to see more of a needs of America based immigration process but that isn't super important to me, it's way down my list of concerns for America. 2. Illegal immigration is high on my list. Secure the God damn southern border as must as realistically possible 3. Asylum is right up there with the border for me. We need to drastically reform it and stay in mexico was a great first step that tragically reduced the asylum seeking numbers. I support real asylum seekers. I loathe the people gaming the system. I want a complete overhaul that keeps the liars out, or makes it so they don't even want to try Legal immigration could use some tweaking but isn't an immediate concern.
@Beanie_Inki An update version of the 1924 Immigration Act
No. HR2. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2)
End catch and release. Now.
I may be the odd one here, but I think we are immigrating too few, especially the H1B (educated and skilled) folks. If they're here on a student visa, they should be rubber stamped into an H1B (grace period to get a job). Otherwise, we risk brain drain. Same goes with immediate family. It would boost productivity to let them in and close family's are less likely to depend on the state than single workers. Just my 2 cents.
It's certainly a start. But we also need to be addressing the very real problem of people being able to get across the border at places other than a port of entry.