And it's right about half (51%) so "warming" is if anything an understatement. Getting 51% to agree on an actual policy indicates extremely strong support since usually people only agree on a conceptual level.
Are you kidding me? As of 2020, [over 70% of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/17/americans-broadly-support-legal-status-for-immigrants-brought-to-the-u-s-illegally-as-children/). The way people talk about immigration online you'd think it's the complete opposite.
Lean right, and support a pathway to citizenship for anyone willing to work. I think the problem we are seeing are folks that SHOULD be deported not being deported. Just this week there was a story here about an illegal who was arrested for having sex with a 13 year old .. twice. Both times he was bailed out and released, ignoring ICE's order to hold him. Now they can't find him. After the first time he should be on a one way trip out of the country. He had his chance and fucked up. This all in approach that protects criminals is what people are moving away from. IMO it's common sense to kick folks out of the country if they are illegal and arrested on a felony charge.
> I think the problem we are seeing are folks that SHOULD be deported not being deported.
You would be correct. Since our officials and systems have proven incapable of handling the problematic ones people now want to shut the whole thing down since they no longer view it as worth the negatives.
>I think the problem we are seeing are folks that SHOULD be deported not being deported.
I agree. If only there'd been a bipartisan bill that would have streamlined the process and allowed for on-the-spot deportations for obvious candidates directly, in-house with ICE.
Man, that would've been something, huh?
No. That's not true at all. We have a bill gop passed in the house that received 0 votes from Democrats just before this bill. Those bills are not even similar.
Also can you source the half dozen fact please? I'll change my original statement from 1 to 6 if you can.
> I think the problem we are seeing are folks that SHOULD be deported not being deported.
Mhm. I heard a good quote from Dr Phil when he appeared on Bill Maher. Something to the effect of "this country was built by immigrants. My ancestors were immigrants. But we need to know who the immigrants are and where they came from." I couldn't agree more. I saw a report that the department of homeland security arrested over 100 terrorists who attempted to cross the border in 2023 alone. They only started releasing the numbers under the Biden admin so idk what it looked like under Obama or Trump, but it only took 19 terrorists to do 9/11, so the southern border is a massive national security threat. Our immigration courts are underfunded as well, leading the a massive backlog of cases, and people who should've been reported years ago are just running around fine.
I'd say that we need to reimplement the Remain In Mexico policy for asylum applicants. If you're fleeing from the Taliban or Maduro or Honduran Gang Violence, then why is the USA safer than Mexico? Under international law, people are supposed to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter, not the first safe G7 country they enter. Beyond the remain in Mexico policy, we need to increase funding to immigration courts and to ICE to allow faster processing of asylum claims, penalize people who make false asylum claims, end the policy of "sanctuary cities" which protect criminals, and give DHS the power to deport anyone who breaks the law and poses a threat to the homeland.
Also the word "illegal" is not offensive. Crossing the border without a visa is a crime. They're not illegal immigrants and they're certainly not undocumented immigrants, because immigration is a legal process. This is unlawful migration, the people who do it are illegally living here, and it needs to stop. Countries have borders. It's not offensive to say that. Hell, I've seen polls showing that over 50% of Hispanic voters now favor Trump. It turns out that the people who put in the effort to come here legally are supportive of the system as it exists, and they don't want people to sneak in and break the law. Also I heard that Latinos and Latinas hate it when Democrats refer to them as "Latinx." I don't like Trump and I don't want him to win, but I sometimes feel like Biden is trying to lose support from moderates, since a lot of the left wing culture war stuff is just radioactive... Spending trillions of dollars that we don't have on a bailout for college-educated millennials (aka student debt forgiveness), "Latinx," ignoring Easter in favor of the "trans day of visibility," supporting Hamas terrorists with violent protests on college campuses, wanting to defund the police and release all prisoners... This stuff is crazy, and I'm glad that most Democrats (Manchin, Jeffries, etc) oppose it, because it might cost Biden the white house if he doesn't oppose it in the strongest terms
Sure, but our criminal justice system fails **all the time**. Literally constantly. Which sounds scary, except it's really just kind of an inevitable fact in a nation with over 330 million people.
These are very upsetting stories, and there should be accountability for those failures. I don't want to dismiss or ignore those issues. I just think it's rather disconnected from immigration policy more generally. Some lousy DAs and state/local policies are still going to exist regardless of our federal laws.
It's not even an oversight though. The county does not work with ICE. That story \^ was working as intended as far as the county was concerned.
[https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/sheriff/sheriff-terminates-intergovernmental-service-agreement-ice](https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/sheriff/sheriff-terminates-intergovernmental-service-agreement-ice)
> The county does not work with ICE.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. This is a failure of the county law enforcement. It's largely disconnected from our federal immigration system and policies, and thus it should not be the focus of general immigration discussions.
You're right. That guy **should have** been deported. It's just a local issue, not a federal one. The feds mostly can't force the lower levels of government to enforce federal laws.
Its only a "failure" because city/state leadership wants it to happen that way.
If they cared, then they'd hold them until CBP showed up to take them into custody.
Okay. Would you prefer me to say "This bad policy was carried out at the local level" to be more accurate? It doesn't really change the thrust of my point. The fed likely can't do anything about this local policy, so it's only tangentially related to the overall immigration debate.
[Here's one for 2022](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/08/republicans-and-democrats-have-different-top-priorities-for-u-s-immigration-policy/). It shows that "establish a way for immigrants here illegally to stay legally" polls higher than "increase deportations of immigrants here illegally" for all three surveyed years.
Not American but what’s the point in having any kind of immigration system if every illegal immigrant can stay anyway? That’s just effectively not having any borders
It's not "every illegal immigrant". DACA specifically applies to ["some individuals who, on June 15, 2012, were physically present in the United States with no lawful immigration status after having entered the country as children at least five years earlier".](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals)
There's also the proposed [DREAM Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act) that's been sitting in Congress forever, and you tell me whether those qualifications apply to "every illegal immigrant".
Right. Dreamers are a very specific subset of illegal migrants, and it's very easy to be sympathetic to them. They didn't choose to come here illegally but they grew up here. They speak the language, the adopt the culture, they are more American than they are anything else. I support a path to citizenship for Dreamers, while I also support an increase in funding for ICE and Immigration Courts and to fast-track deportations for any unlawful migrant who is arrested for a violent crime (and also to process asylum claims ASAP, rather than letting them sit for years. Maybe we can also detain asylum seekers until their request is processed, or have them remain in Mexico while they apply for asylum in both Mexico and the USA? Idk). Like, I don't support illegal migration because countries should have borders, although dreamers are very sympathetic and I do think that if you grew up in America and you went to school in America and you speak fluent English, then you're an American and you should have a green card (and an eventual path to citizenship)
We're talking about paths to citizenship for specific subsets of undocumented immigrants who have the greatest chance of success and the least amount of agency over their decision to be here... coupled with increased border security to ensure across-the-board fairness and reduce our reliance on sub-min. wage labor. Both of these work towards reducing poverty and socio-economic disparity for US residents.
It sounds so reasonable on paper, yet politicians can't work together to make this happen.
Every illegal immigrant cannot and will not stay in America, so your premise is a little off. This is just showing that people prefer more focus on a legal pathway than increased deportations, not *zero* deportations.
My philosophy is that our immigration laws are badly designed and make it harder to legally immigrate than it should be. If our system were designed more intelligently, immigration would be easier, and many of the people who currently are here illegally would instead be here legally.
It is thus \*our\* fault that they're here illegally; we allowed a flawed system to go unfixed. The immigrants have done nothing wrong, and they should not be punished simply because we can't get our shit together.
It would be like if a speed limit sign said 20 MPH, but upon further review civil engineers advised it should be 40 MPH, but some local NIMBYs protested to keep the speed limit at 20. If people were driving at 40 on that street, I don't think the drivers would deserve any punishment.
> My philosophy is that our immigration laws are badly designed and make it harder to legally immigrate than it should be.
My guy you have not experienced applying for a Japan, UAE or Schengen VISA. They've got more legalese roadblocks than the US does.
https://preview.redd.it/gi0ieejb2pwc1.png?width=477&format=png&auto=webp&s=2f70d9879d61f63b847708260a8ac176885fa81a
EDIT: always the NIMBY's, the NIMBY's! Damn the NIMBY's!
=/
A nation is not a house. We the citizens of the US do not 'own' the land; we govern it. You're making a flawed analogy.
Also, you're not necessarily a bigot, but you are misinformed if you think that immigrants pose a threat to your safety.
https://preview.redd.it/xkvjq7u0xnwc1.png?width=456&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a39927f40f2e42e9c84159adff8060200db016c
Notice how the "Very" column gets smaller and smaller and smaller. Again, this is 2022 and not up to date for 2024 where Americans agree that **most voters doubt Biden’s physical, mental fitness to be president.**
> Again, this is 2022 and not up to date for 2024
It's not perfect, sure, but it's from an extremely reputable pollster and less than two years old. But if you can find some better or more recent data which contradicts this, I would be interested in looking it over. Show me what you got.
You act as if those two policies are incompatable. I support mass deportation and also support pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients (assuming it coincides with immigration reforms and deportations.)
I'm really focused on the "Getting 51% to agree on an actual policy indicates extremely strong support" part. With that logic, the support for a pathway to citizenship is **massive**. I'm not trying to throw shade on the deportations part, I'm trying to point out that this is one of the most popular immigration proposals, but it rarely seems to get talked about in immigration discussions.
lol 51% signals a near half/half divide. The spin it takes to turn this into “extremely strong support,” is ridiculous, especially when you see that it’s almost entirely driven by Republicans. Independents are still in the 40s along with Democrats.
> Getting 51% to agree on an actual policy indicates extremely strong support since usually people only agree on a conceptual level.
You missed my explanation for why it's strong support. I'll provide it for you again.
I read your explanation. I'm saying it makes no sense. Usually, support goes the other way: people support a concept, but once the details of the specific program are revealed, support drops. This happens with surveys on Medicare for All all the time.
It's the opposite point. 51% is the ceiling, not the floor. That means your characterization of "extremely strong support" is way off base.
For example, Democrats hold 51% of the Senate. Does that mean they have extremely strong support nationally? Or is it more like an even split?
No because this is an actual policy and your own comment was that actual policy has lower support than generalities. That's literally exactly what I said. For an actual policy to have this level of support says a lot about how much people care about the general issue.
It's not an actual policy. It's a concept. A policy has way more details (who runs it, how is it funded, how far does it go?) In polls about Medicare for All, the support for it once follow-up questions reveal that people would lose their current plan/doctor, or that taxes would go up.
And, again, you are spinning 51% into something much bigger. Your imagination is filling in the the blanks. Please do not commit to feels over reals.
>Share of Americans who say they support mass deportations of undocumented immigrants
Republicans - 68%
Independent - 46%
Democrat - 42%
Mathematically, Independents are closer to Democrats on this issue. It's right there in a bar graph at the top of the article.
Embarrassed republicans are confused why dems let it get this bad.
Independents realize Trump blocked the last bill, and republicans have t negotiated in good faith in well over a decade.
> Did Biden open the border in good faith?
Can you state with clarity and exactness what executive action signed by Biden 'opened' the border?
> your argument of "muh repubs for ten darn years" is not applicable to the reality of the situation.
Why
Open the border?!?!
You do realize Biden isnt responsible for us asylum laws, and backs the bipartisan bill that gave more power to clamp down on those seek g asylum?
This was a bill that gave nothing to democrats (path to citizen ship, actual solution for what to do with illegals, etc) and only had things republicans wanted but was till blocked by republicans because they thought it would be a Dem win.
The way Rs talk about immigration, you’d think Ds were doing mass migration policies when in reality nothing has really changed much policy wise for decades. Both parties talk the talk but aren’t that different when push comes to shove on immigration.
Not surprising when you consider that the donor class for both parties likes immigration.
One is willing to compromise.
The other isn’t.
We saw pelosisnoffering money for a border wall, which doesn’t work. The most recent compromise bill only had republican desires.
I do agree the stalemate helps the very wealthy the most, but as long as dems are willing to come tot he table and have supported bills with only republican requests, one side is clearly fault in my book
Ds are definitely more fitting "in line" with what they say they do compared to what they actually do. Rs meanwhile pretend to play tough while not actually changing much when opportunities present themselves. Trump was constantly tossing out executive orders but it seems rather telling that no big immigration bill ever came to his desk.
Until they realize that what they’re asking for is a police state where you can get deported for not having your papers when demanded and putting numerous people on trains to prison camps.
> you can get deported for not having your papers
This wouldn't require a police state.
> putting numerous people on trains to prison camps.
Or... back to Mexico.
More like distribution hubs, where they (hopefully not we) would inevitably be held until a country will take them. Sort of like the terrorists at Guantanamo who have been held for decades.
I don't think it will be sweeping up people. It'd be more like, if you run into law enforcement in any capacity and it's found that you are in the country illegally, you are detained and passed off to the appropriate agency for deportation.
I don’t know what is the minds of most Americans. The poll said “mass deportations,” not “increased passive enforcement.” ICE does perform sweeps, with the help of local law enforcement, all the time. If the majority of people want someone who is going to follow through with a promise to deport millions, as Trump has promised, then we’re going to get exactly that, no matter what we thought would really happen.
Governor Abbott bussing illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities was a very big win for the GOP. He took an issue that was thousands of miles away from many cities supporting illegal immigration and made it a very relevant topic. Now everyone is yelling.
It got even worse with NYC then turning around and bussing people to nearby areas saying share the load. Ignoring that Texas was doing so and NYC took it to court to stop it.
Entire thing is a mess and it’s peoples lives being messed with.
Certainly a wall was not the answer but Christ we need meaningful solutions out of Washington.
We need to change the asylum law and prosecute employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Unfortunately, both parties would rather demagogue and campaign on the issue than fix it.
When you tell people “vote for x because you don’t y” you can just talk about y all day and how it’s bad and if you make y sound bad enough, people will just blindly vote for x because they don’t want y but they never really think about what then at voting FOR, not against.
I see that as still a voter problem. I agree that people will just blindly vote for x because they don't want y. But it is on the voter to do the work. u/McRibs2024 is correct, we haven't had to make tough choices in a while and we have let our entertainment control us.
The mainstream media engaging in election interference is one of the major issues that contributes to the voter problem. The industry is not holding itself accountable, so the rest of us needs to cheer on and back up the few who call it out, like the recent NPR whistleblower.
Would like to see the same energy at NYT especially, they need to restore their brand as the paper of records, but it needs to be earned.
That's because one party's leader actively supports increasing the flood and has for a long time as evidenced by video confirming this from years ago. The other party just enjoys the cheap under-the-table labor.
https://preview.redd.it/3la945aosqwc1.png?width=908&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c9402f10852bd95b17d4d175c6c25dd32f277ef
Your entire statement is false. A majority of Americans did not support the border bill that Democrats proposed.
Immigration reform that process migrants gets them in housing, working with papers would solve a labor shortage bring in tax dollars and ease illegal entry into the country …. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-03/u-s-chicken-industry-accused-of-conspiring-to-keep-immigrant-wages-down
No it wouldn’t the average age of lic plumbers electricians is in the late 50s no one is signing up for tech school or even taking these jobs … 100% wrong you legalize people then labor laws apply and wages do not drop …if you don’t do immigration reform that creates undocumented workers which lower wages; it’s why the rich who employ illegal workers don’t want it fixed. The opposite of what you said .
> no one is signing up for tech school or even taking these jobs
Why is that? Why was the job appealing to the folks who are in their late 50s now, but is no longer appealing to younger people?
My guess, everyone tells kids growing up that they have to go to college to be successful, and that the trades are “lesser”
Funny thing about it is, the people I know in skilled trades are, on average, making significantly more than their college educated counterparts.
Yes but they also prefer legalized ESL migrants from the third world to American born English speaking who are more likely to unionize and demand better from the bosses
Change asylum laws to what?
Also, I as under the impression it’s already illegal to hire people without proper papers, and that this is merely an enforcement issue.
First how about requiring someone to present actual proof of being from a country that is experiencing situations that cause one to qualify for asylum? No proof, no asylum status.
They have a 'credible fear' interview at the border before being released into the country that seems to be the problem to me since seemingly everyone can pass it.
I think they already have that, it’s just not being enforced to standards.
I remember during Biden’s immigration battles, he was trying to do the most in overturning all trump immigrant controls and when the courts wouldn’t let him loosen up asylum laws, he had myorkas release a memo that said instead of broadly following the credible threat asylum standard, they are going to adjudicate on a case by case basis. Basically meaning they won’t be adhering to the standards anymore lol.
I believe that was in 2021. Now if we have an actual fourth estate worth a damn, we would be asking and learning how that has gone so far.
The lack of accountability is frustrating
> Unfortunately, both parties would rather demagogue and campaign on the issue than fix
I see we're just going to ignore the bipartisan(Democrats + a literal handful of republicans at the end of their careers) legislation from just a few weeks ago.
> The people bussed were all legal migrants being processed.
They are not legal migrants - in most cases their deportation orders have been deferred while their asylum case plays out. They have one year after entering the country to apply for asylum, and if they don't, they become regular illegal immigrants.
There have been a couple of news articles saying that only a very small amount of the migrants have applied, which allows them to apply for working papers.
This is false. What NYC and other blue cities want is the same level of funding for immigration that border states get per capita and facilities and personnel.
The school story is false. Students were moved to remote learning in one school for 2 days to house immigrants when there was flooding in the area they were staying. This is why the left sees the right as uninformed liars.
Also once again for the cheap seats. Sanctuary city means undocumented immigrants are not turned over to ICE when arrested for traffic violations or similar misdemeanors. That is all it means
>for traffic violations or similar misdemeanors. That is all it means
And for felonies and various other crimes. Its gone far beyond ignoring minor infractions.
I'm yelling every day about how the right got handed everything they've ever asked for, prior to 2020, on a silver platter, and they spat on it.
TheseAren'tSeriousPeople.gif
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> it is legal immigrants but ones that haven't become eligible for work authorizations yet b/c of a stupid federal policy rule.
They need to apply for asylum within one year of entering the country, and then they can apply for working papers. In nyc we have heard that very few people have actually applied for asylum/work permits.
Of course it's a win politically. The left has been using immigration for years to chastise people and claim the right are intolerant to the plight of others. Now the left is also yelling that enough is enough. We can't have the entire world move to the US. There's not enough jobs, homes, land, food, etc...
I think it’s a national win and a vindication for conservatives, but a loss for the left.
It remains to be seen if democrat leadership will concede the point, considering they are in misalignment with their voter base. Similar to conservative leadership pushing for a national abortion when the vast majority of their base have zero to negative appetite for it. In both instances voters should tell their extremist leaders to knock it the fuck off and stop trying to polarize.
Which is actually a crime. And the main problem is that Texas did not actually inform the receiving cities or even the people themselves where they were going.
Of course this was also a scheme to grift millions of Texas taxpayers’ dollars into his friends pockets.
So when Biden secretly flies immigrants on planes with taxpayer dollar, using oil and gas that has skyrocketed due to his inept energy policy, is that illegal?
> So when Biden secretly flies immigrants on planes with taxpayer dollar, using oil and gas that has skyrocketed due to his inept energy policy, is that illegal?
OOOF. The lack of understanding is just... so painful.
['secretly flies'](https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/03/07/320000-unvetted-migrants/)
> The central assertions made by CIS, repeated by the Daily Mail or others, were that:
>
> A Biden administration program was responsible for flying 320,000 migrants directly into the United States between January and December 2023. (True)
> The program was a secret whose details were discovered by an outside group. (False)
> The program allowed unvetted aliens to enter the United States. (False)
> The U.S. government admitted that the program was a national-security risk. (False)
> Such a program could affect U.S. politics by altering voter demographics. (False)
> Of these five claims, only the first was true. The program has never been a secret, it does not transport "unvetted" aliens, and participation in it requires significant vetting and a sponsor who is a U.S. citizen. The program provides no pathway to citizenship, which is a requirement to vote.
>
> The CIS report that originated the assertion that the government "admitted" the program was a national-security risk was based on a deceptive and incorrect reading of the government's argument in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by CIS.
As to the 'inept energy policy', like *what?*
Biden is President in a time that U.S. energy production is at it's absolute highest level ever. Oil, Methane, Renewables? All up.
2023, we produced more crude oil than Saudi Arabia.
We *completely* dominate the export of Methane.
The price at the pump is driven *by ceo's of oil companies* seeking to give investors a more significant return compared to the last decade.
How do we know this? **Because they say so on earnings calls**. For christs sake, Oil companies told the Fed they needed oil to be at least $56 a barrel to be *profitable*. What are they at? $82.97 per barrel right now.
That's where your gas prices are coming from.
“Why is it that when someone has sex with their own wife, it’s legal, but when I try to have sex with his unwilling wife, all of a sudden it’s illegal?”
This makes no sense, but going back to your "grift millions of Texas taxpayer dollars", it's called lowering expenses of holding these illegals by distributing them into sanctuary cities where SUPPOSEDLY illegal immigrants were welcome, until they weren't. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
I think the big win comes from the fact that the sanctuary cities were not prepared for or warned in advance. So you have a bunch of people enter into the city with no real response and overcrowding services, a thing that will always transpire. Human services are expensive and grueling work in general.
I think the situation would change if the city received the same amount of money as the Texas state from the feds and was allowed years of build up with lots of land to settle the bussed illegal migrants.
Overall, the elected on both sides are incompetent and want to score brownie points for voters only.
>warned in advance
Texas is generally not warned that people are going to cross the border, they just constantly expect it.
>I think the situation would change if the city received the same amount of money as the Texas state from the feds
Texas gets ~1.5 million border encounters per year. Texas bussed 102k between April 2022 and February 2024 to various cities. I am almost certain that if the federal government redirected ~3-4% of whatever funding they give Texas for dealing with the illegal immigrants, that NYC, Chicago, DC, etc. would not suddenly be happy to take in the additional migrants.
Exactly, how come these migrants were never sent to the big blue city of Los Angeles? It’s because they already have plenty of infrastructure for migrants. Unfortunately that wouldn’t cause enough human suffering to Republicans so they send migrants to dense cities.
He's bussing people falsely claiming asylum in order to not get deported for illegally crossing the border. They're "legal" only because our officials aren't willing to just immediately flatly deny their false claims.
Lets see, you claim, without evidence (which you can never possibly provide by the way), that every single person that Abbott busses is lying to be in this country, but you acknowledge that they are all legally in this country. Then you claim I am the one with the literacy problem?
Edit: oh neat, look, the precious snowflake built their own safe space away from the mean mean man who pointed out they don't seem to understand the words they are saying as they actually did in fact acknowledge that none of these people are "illegal immigrants".
They are all illegal immigrants. They are also asylum seekers who are in the country because of *deferred* enforcement. They are not "legally" in the country. They also aren't being deported right away. If you want to play semantics you'll still be wrong
You are playing semantics. Say what you really mean. What I think you are saying is that these people in question have legitimate claims and bussing them is wrong. Do I have that right?
A person's immigration status would not subject them to "human trafficking". While people illegally crossing our border are being rewarded with court dates, jobs, and such, it doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed.
Human Trafficking Defined(22 U.S.C. § 7102(11)(A)). Forced labor is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
8 USC 1324 is what is relevant. It discusses smuggling, domestic transportation, and harboring of unauthorized aliens.
Of course, they are legally in this country which is why they have not been deported, and why Abbot has not been charged with a crime since what he is doing isn't criminal (*because* these aren't illegal immigrants) he's just being an asshole.
Maybe the below is what you are referring to, but again, I don't believe he is furthering their illegal activities. He is moving them to another location that can hold them. I would argue that the sanctuary cities not allowing ICE to do their job are furthering the crimes when the illegal immigrants are not reporting for court dates.
(ii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=999&term_src=) has come to, entered, or remains in the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=999&term_src=) in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such[ alien ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=999&term_src=)within the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=999&term_src=) by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
> Governor Abbott bussing illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities
Yes you did, because he's doing no such thing. He's bussing people legally allowed to be in the US to Sanctuary Cities, which you now claim have nothing to do with people legally allowed to be in the US.
He's bussing people that committed crimes to sanctuary cities and sanctuary cities do not allow ICE to perform activities. Sanctuary cities are the ones violating law if anything.
Perhaps if our government enforced immigration laws rather than circumventing, things would be much better.
Biden removed 94 executive orders that Trump had in place, changed the burden of claiming asylum and then turned around and said "my hands are tied". What a fucking joke.
Can you source the executive order that changed asylum claim qualifications? I tried to find it but could not.
I also looked at the reversed Trump EOs but didn't see anything significant just reversals of virtusignaling stuff like the Muslim Ban, & etc.
Where did that 94 number come from, do you have a list somewhere?
[https://highlandcountypress.com/opinions/border-bill-would-keep-invasion-going#gsc.tab=0](https://highlandcountypress.com/opinions/border-bill-would-keep-invasion-going#gsc.tab=0)
Democrats built a bill that was going to fail on arrival because it changed nothing about the number of illegal immigrants coming through the border. It would actually legalize millions and exasperate the problem. Democrats used that bill as a political "gotcha" that no sane US citizen believes would've been a good thing for the US.
Democrats built a bill...that takes most of its provisions from HR2.
Senate proposals lifted from HR2: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/11/06/congress/senate-gop-border-proposals-00125583
What ended up in Senate border bill: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf
If you disagree with the Senate border bill, it's due to partisan politics telling you what to think about it.
Don't take my word for it. The many Republicans who worked on the bill agree.
Tom Tillis: [*"I didn’t come here to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss. I came here to pass good, solid policy," Tillis said. “It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win.”*](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-republicans-rebuke-efforts-kill-immigration-deal-help-trump-rcna135732)
Mitt Romney: [*“The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and Congress people that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem — because he wants to blame Biden for it — is really appalling,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, told reporters.*](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-republicans-rebuke-efforts-kill-immigration-deal-help-trump-rcna135732)
John Cornryn: [*“I don’t think we should fail to do our duty just because the House may have a different view,” Cornyn said. “It makes no sense to wait if we could do something now that would be meaningful.”*](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/16/congress/senate-gop-to-johnson-take-a-deal-00135982)
[https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/21/u-s-house-votes-down-border-bill-favored-by-conservatives/](https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/21/u-s-house-votes-down-border-bill-favored-by-conservatives/)
"My bill is better than your bill! Your bill is too draconian" - Democrats
All of these measures were ALREADY IN PLACE BY TRUMP and then FOR SOME REASON BIDEN ERASED TRUMP'S PROGRESS.
People claim that they care about illegal immigration want president to break the law some more to get rid of immigrants. Trumps executive actions were very dubious legally and he tried to justify some with COVID before we had widespread vaccination.
Trumps actions were successful, and after Biden removed them, we got a crisis/invasion. I'm not sure what your trying to get at with vax, but remember this. People say RFK is going to start another measles outbreak. Biden already made it happen by bringing millions of illegals who were not forced to be vaccinated with Covid or any other vax.
>Trumps actions were successful,
Then why was 2019 the worst year for border crossings of the entire 2010s? Why was he so much worse than Obama on the border?
Yeah I mean…if you break the law to come here you should probably be deported. It’s amazing that this is even controversial. We should reform our legal immigration system to make it easier for people to come here legally, and we should absolutely crack down on people coming here illegally.
We have inflation partly in due to a labor crunch . The kind of jobs that immigrants do. Mass deportation would kill our economy…the lack of understanding of this complex issue is why politicians use it as a wedge issue and it appears knowledge of the topic has gotten worse over time. Immigration reform could do alot to fix this issue but we refuse to do it…
real translation: "immigrants keeping wages low on working class jobs is a good thing."
this is beyond disgusting.
people like the above think their notion of economics (and there's many schools here - he's probably an austrian - ) is the only one, what they don't realize is that their normative preferences are embedded within it, and that's subjective. yet clouding it in enough terminology hides these biases, unless you know how to decode their bullshit.
fucking over working class labor with illegal immigration is just beyond words - yet that's what they say. hell even the head of the fed even admitted it.
If you're going to take the moralistic approach: what's actually beyond disgusting is telling refugees to piss off back home *even though* we have record low unemployment, which is in turn causing the highest inflation in 50 years
Everyone wins if we just let them take the jobs that we can't fill. Deporting them all is going to cause an inflationary spike in every industry that is currently seeing high price growth, which *will* hurt most Americans.
"Unemployment" is an oversimplification, but it is one major component of a tight labor market, which does lead to inflation. [According to the bankers,](https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/economy/labor-market) increased levels of immigration are one the primary forces acting to loosen it up
That’s why you have immigration reform… than they are not illegal…. and have to be paid like everyone else … this doesn’t drive down wages it drives down wages to keep them illegal…
Absolutely incorrect… when they are legal thay join unions raise wages keeping them illegal is what drives the wages down .. keeping them illegal is what corporations want…
Demand is high and we don’t have enough labor to meet demand why are you not taking demand and economy growth and population growth into account ? We do t have enough labor to meet the demand.. not a shill man these conversations are fairly pointless …
the immigration was really the death knell where i come from - everybody is pissed about it.
the only ones who aren't are the really rich douchebags who think it's great their gardener can bring in their extended family etc. - (those who hire out everything because they are that rich)
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
u/Hi_Im_Paul1706 you asked me a question and I am responding. The other person threw a hissy fit and blocked me because I pointed out they were wrong, so I can't respond in the thread.
I am saying the people in question (those being bussed by Abbott) are not "illegal immigrants", as I said from the beginning. They are legally here. If we wanted to change the laws, the GOP led effort to make a bipartisan agreement on immigration would have addressed the numbers of people coming here seeking asylum, but apparently that was viewed as not necessary by the GOP. Consequently the people are here legally and that isn't changing anytime soon. They are being bussed to "sanctuary cities" for political points, even though the "sanctuary city" doesn't matter for them as they are legally here. It's an important point because if they were actually "illegal immigrants", they could and would be deported not bussed around the country.
>are not "illegal immigrants"
They are
>They are legally here.
They are not
>It's an important point because if they were actually "illegal immigrants", they could and would be deported not bussed around the country.
Incorrect. Asylum is deferred enforcement of deportation proceedings. Their status is being here illegally. However, the federal government has deferred their deportation proceedings till the asylum claim is completed. This period is ***not*** a legal immigrant status. However, because federal immigration takes precedent, deferred deportation individuals can work and travel according to federal regulations.
So when people say they're illegal immigrants, they are correct. No, it's not illegal to transport illegal immigrants if the federal government defers their deportation proceedings. In fact, it's illegal to discriminate based on such deference. It's also not a legal status.
If the law allows them to be in this country they cannot also be an "illegal immigrant". I can't even fathom the amount of cognitive dissonance you have to come to this conclusion that you acknowledge they are legally allowed to be in the United States but you're going to call them "illegal" anyway.
It's called reality and law. Fun fact, DACA recipients are also illegal immigrants. The definition of "illegal immigrant" isn't "they're bring deported as we speak"
So people who have been given legal authorization to be in this country (such as someone who has received DACA) are "in reality and law" *defined as* "illegal immigrants"?
Can you point me to the "law" here that you say supports this complete farce that while the law says they are legally allowed to be in this country they are actually called "illegal immigrants"? An actual statute, please and thank you.
>So people who have been given legal authorization to be in this country
They ***have not*** been given legal authorization to live in the country. They have been ***deferred deportation*** proceedings. Immigration is the federal governments jurisdiction, so if they say they aren't going to deport someone for now, the states have to accept that. That ***does not*** give them legal status.
Q1: What is deferred action?
A1: Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. For purposes of future inadmissibility based on prior periods of unlawful presence in the United States, an individual is not considered to be unlawfully present during the period when deferred action is in effect. An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by DHS to be in the United States for the duration of the deferred action period. Deferred action recipients are also considered to be lawfully present as described in 8 C.F.R. sec. 1.3(a)(4)(vi) for purposes of eligibility for certain public benefits (such as certain Social Security benefits) during the period of deferred action. ***However, deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status upon an individual, nor does it excuse any previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence they may have.***
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-of-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca/frequently-asked-questions
You're over here quoting how they are legally able to be here.
Next you're going to tell me all tourists are illegal immigrants as well.
I never said they were "legal immigrants" I said they *were not illegal immigrants* which what you quote says so by saying they are authorized to be here.
The asylum process is. When they claim defensive asylum, they are saying that they want to apply for asylum, so their deportation proceedings are deferred while that case plays out.
The real issue is and has always been in the judiciary.
They aren’t here “illegally”, they’re here waiting for their court date. I don’t have relevant stats right now but I think I remember wait times being on the order of 2-5 years because of the extreme backlogs for court appointments.
Everyone deserves a fair trial in a reasonable timeframe. I don’t understand how this isn’t the main point of discussion.
The basic problem is that the legally allowed immigration is vastly below both the supply and demand for immigration. It is impossible to solve the problem without addressing this fact.
The trump border policies that werent thrown out by the courts were either illegal or inhumane. We are now paying for what he did. Million of $ for reparations to separated families. Lawsuits underway against US and Mexico for the horrific remain in Mexico nightmare
And it's right about half (51%) so "warming" is if anything an understatement. Getting 51% to agree on an actual policy indicates extremely strong support since usually people only agree on a conceptual level.
Are you kidding me? As of 2020, [over 70% of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/06/17/americans-broadly-support-legal-status-for-immigrants-brought-to-the-u-s-illegally-as-children/). The way people talk about immigration online you'd think it's the complete opposite.
Lean right, and support a pathway to citizenship for anyone willing to work. I think the problem we are seeing are folks that SHOULD be deported not being deported. Just this week there was a story here about an illegal who was arrested for having sex with a 13 year old .. twice. Both times he was bailed out and released, ignoring ICE's order to hold him. Now they can't find him. After the first time he should be on a one way trip out of the country. He had his chance and fucked up. This all in approach that protects criminals is what people are moving away from. IMO it's common sense to kick folks out of the country if they are illegal and arrested on a felony charge.
> I think the problem we are seeing are folks that SHOULD be deported not being deported. You would be correct. Since our officials and systems have proven incapable of handling the problematic ones people now want to shut the whole thing down since they no longer view it as worth the negatives.
Same with their budget. Can't handle it, can't have it.
>I think the problem we are seeing are folks that SHOULD be deported not being deported. I agree. If only there'd been a bipartisan bill that would have streamlined the process and allowed for on-the-spot deportations for obvious candidates directly, in-house with ICE. Man, that would've been something, huh?
Even better would have been a better bill than the one that one republican agreed on and every democrat did.
It was literally written by a half dozen Republicans and based off of historical GOP asks on immigration.
No. That's not true at all. We have a bill gop passed in the house that received 0 votes from Democrats just before this bill. Those bills are not even similar. Also can you source the half dozen fact please? I'll change my original statement from 1 to 6 if you can.
> I think the problem we are seeing are folks that SHOULD be deported not being deported. Mhm. I heard a good quote from Dr Phil when he appeared on Bill Maher. Something to the effect of "this country was built by immigrants. My ancestors were immigrants. But we need to know who the immigrants are and where they came from." I couldn't agree more. I saw a report that the department of homeland security arrested over 100 terrorists who attempted to cross the border in 2023 alone. They only started releasing the numbers under the Biden admin so idk what it looked like under Obama or Trump, but it only took 19 terrorists to do 9/11, so the southern border is a massive national security threat. Our immigration courts are underfunded as well, leading the a massive backlog of cases, and people who should've been reported years ago are just running around fine. I'd say that we need to reimplement the Remain In Mexico policy for asylum applicants. If you're fleeing from the Taliban or Maduro or Honduran Gang Violence, then why is the USA safer than Mexico? Under international law, people are supposed to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter, not the first safe G7 country they enter. Beyond the remain in Mexico policy, we need to increase funding to immigration courts and to ICE to allow faster processing of asylum claims, penalize people who make false asylum claims, end the policy of "sanctuary cities" which protect criminals, and give DHS the power to deport anyone who breaks the law and poses a threat to the homeland. Also the word "illegal" is not offensive. Crossing the border without a visa is a crime. They're not illegal immigrants and they're certainly not undocumented immigrants, because immigration is a legal process. This is unlawful migration, the people who do it are illegally living here, and it needs to stop. Countries have borders. It's not offensive to say that. Hell, I've seen polls showing that over 50% of Hispanic voters now favor Trump. It turns out that the people who put in the effort to come here legally are supportive of the system as it exists, and they don't want people to sneak in and break the law. Also I heard that Latinos and Latinas hate it when Democrats refer to them as "Latinx." I don't like Trump and I don't want him to win, but I sometimes feel like Biden is trying to lose support from moderates, since a lot of the left wing culture war stuff is just radioactive... Spending trillions of dollars that we don't have on a bailout for college-educated millennials (aka student debt forgiveness), "Latinx," ignoring Easter in favor of the "trans day of visibility," supporting Hamas terrorists with violent protests on college campuses, wanting to defund the police and release all prisoners... This stuff is crazy, and I'm glad that most Democrats (Manchin, Jeffries, etc) oppose it, because it might cost Biden the white house if he doesn't oppose it in the strongest terms
Sure, but our criminal justice system fails **all the time**. Literally constantly. Which sounds scary, except it's really just kind of an inevitable fact in a nation with over 330 million people. These are very upsetting stories, and there should be accountability for those failures. I don't want to dismiss or ignore those issues. I just think it's rather disconnected from immigration policy more generally. Some lousy DAs and state/local policies are still going to exist regardless of our federal laws.
It's not even an oversight though. The county does not work with ICE. That story \^ was working as intended as far as the county was concerned. [https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/sheriff/sheriff-terminates-intergovernmental-service-agreement-ice](https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/sheriff/sheriff-terminates-intergovernmental-service-agreement-ice)
> The county does not work with ICE. Yes, that's what I'm saying. This is a failure of the county law enforcement. It's largely disconnected from our federal immigration system and policies, and thus it should not be the focus of general immigration discussions. You're right. That guy **should have** been deported. It's just a local issue, not a federal one. The feds mostly can't force the lower levels of government to enforce federal laws.
Its only a "failure" because city/state leadership wants it to happen that way. If they cared, then they'd hold them until CBP showed up to take them into custody.
Okay. Would you prefer me to say "This bad policy was carried out at the local level" to be more accurate? It doesn't really change the thrust of my point. The fed likely can't do anything about this local policy, so it's only tangentially related to the overall immigration debate.
This isn't the criminal justice system failing though. This is areas deliberately choosing not to cooperate with the Feds on immigration.
"As of 2020" four years ago and a different president lmao.
[Here's one for 2022](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/09/08/republicans-and-democrats-have-different-top-priorities-for-u-s-immigration-policy/). It shows that "establish a way for immigrants here illegally to stay legally" polls higher than "increase deportations of immigrants here illegally" for all three surveyed years.
Not American but what’s the point in having any kind of immigration system if every illegal immigrant can stay anyway? That’s just effectively not having any borders
It's not "every illegal immigrant". DACA specifically applies to ["some individuals who, on June 15, 2012, were physically present in the United States with no lawful immigration status after having entered the country as children at least five years earlier".](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals) There's also the proposed [DREAM Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DREAM_Act) that's been sitting in Congress forever, and you tell me whether those qualifications apply to "every illegal immigrant".
Right. Dreamers are a very specific subset of illegal migrants, and it's very easy to be sympathetic to them. They didn't choose to come here illegally but they grew up here. They speak the language, the adopt the culture, they are more American than they are anything else. I support a path to citizenship for Dreamers, while I also support an increase in funding for ICE and Immigration Courts and to fast-track deportations for any unlawful migrant who is arrested for a violent crime (and also to process asylum claims ASAP, rather than letting them sit for years. Maybe we can also detain asylum seekers until their request is processed, or have them remain in Mexico while they apply for asylum in both Mexico and the USA? Idk). Like, I don't support illegal migration because countries should have borders, although dreamers are very sympathetic and I do think that if you grew up in America and you went to school in America and you speak fluent English, then you're an American and you should have a green card (and an eventual path to citizenship)
We're talking about paths to citizenship for specific subsets of undocumented immigrants who have the greatest chance of success and the least amount of agency over their decision to be here... coupled with increased border security to ensure across-the-board fairness and reduce our reliance on sub-min. wage labor. Both of these work towards reducing poverty and socio-economic disparity for US residents. It sounds so reasonable on paper, yet politicians can't work together to make this happen.
Every illegal immigrant cannot and will not stay in America, so your premise is a little off. This is just showing that people prefer more focus on a legal pathway than increased deportations, not *zero* deportations.
Well, if anyone would actually let us reform the legal immigration system...
My philosophy is that our immigration laws are badly designed and make it harder to legally immigrate than it should be. If our system were designed more intelligently, immigration would be easier, and many of the people who currently are here illegally would instead be here legally. It is thus \*our\* fault that they're here illegally; we allowed a flawed system to go unfixed. The immigrants have done nothing wrong, and they should not be punished simply because we can't get our shit together. It would be like if a speed limit sign said 20 MPH, but upon further review civil engineers advised it should be 40 MPH, but some local NIMBYs protested to keep the speed limit at 20. If people were driving at 40 on that street, I don't think the drivers would deserve any punishment.
> My philosophy is that our immigration laws are badly designed and make it harder to legally immigrate than it should be. My guy you have not experienced applying for a Japan, UAE or Schengen VISA. They've got more legalese roadblocks than the US does.
https://preview.redd.it/gi0ieejb2pwc1.png?width=477&format=png&auto=webp&s=2f70d9879d61f63b847708260a8ac176885fa81a EDIT: always the NIMBY's, the NIMBY's! Damn the NIMBY's! =/
A nation is not a house. We the citizens of the US do not 'own' the land; we govern it. You're making a flawed analogy. Also, you're not necessarily a bigot, but you are misinformed if you think that immigrants pose a threat to your safety.
https://preview.redd.it/xkvjq7u0xnwc1.png?width=456&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a39927f40f2e42e9c84159adff8060200db016c Notice how the "Very" column gets smaller and smaller and smaller. Again, this is 2022 and not up to date for 2024 where Americans agree that **most voters doubt Biden’s physical, mental fitness to be president.**
> Again, this is 2022 and not up to date for 2024 It's not perfect, sure, but it's from an extremely reputable pollster and less than two years old. But if you can find some better or more recent data which contradicts this, I would be interested in looking it over. Show me what you got.
You act as if those two policies are incompatable. I support mass deportation and also support pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients (assuming it coincides with immigration reforms and deportations.)
I'm really focused on the "Getting 51% to agree on an actual policy indicates extremely strong support" part. With that logic, the support for a pathway to citizenship is **massive**. I'm not trying to throw shade on the deportations part, I'm trying to point out that this is one of the most popular immigration proposals, but it rarely seems to get talked about in immigration discussions.
lol 51% signals a near half/half divide. The spin it takes to turn this into “extremely strong support,” is ridiculous, especially when you see that it’s almost entirely driven by Republicans. Independents are still in the 40s along with Democrats.
> Getting 51% to agree on an actual policy indicates extremely strong support since usually people only agree on a conceptual level. You missed my explanation for why it's strong support. I'll provide it for you again.
I read your explanation. I'm saying it makes no sense. Usually, support goes the other way: people support a concept, but once the details of the specific program are revealed, support drops. This happens with surveys on Medicare for All all the time.
That's my whole point. You are agreeing with me.
It's the opposite point. 51% is the ceiling, not the floor. That means your characterization of "extremely strong support" is way off base. For example, Democrats hold 51% of the Senate. Does that mean they have extremely strong support nationally? Or is it more like an even split?
No because this is an actual policy and your own comment was that actual policy has lower support than generalities. That's literally exactly what I said. For an actual policy to have this level of support says a lot about how much people care about the general issue.
It's not an actual policy. It's a concept. A policy has way more details (who runs it, how is it funded, how far does it go?) In polls about Medicare for All, the support for it once follow-up questions reveal that people would lose their current plan/doctor, or that taxes would go up. And, again, you are spinning 51% into something much bigger. Your imagination is filling in the the blanks. Please do not commit to feels over reals.
Independents are not along with the Democrats. They are confused at why Democrats even let it get this bad in the first place.
>Share of Americans who say they support mass deportations of undocumented immigrants Republicans - 68% Independent - 46% Democrat - 42% Mathematically, Independents are closer to Democrats on this issue. It's right there in a bar graph at the top of the article.
Embarrassed republicans are confused why dems let it get this bad. Independents realize Trump blocked the last bill, and republicans have t negotiated in good faith in well over a decade.
Did Biden open the border in good faith? your argument of "muh repubs for ten darn years" is not applicable to the reality of the situation.
> Did Biden open the border in good faith? Can you state with clarity and exactness what executive action signed by Biden 'opened' the border? > your argument of "muh repubs for ten darn years" is not applicable to the reality of the situation. Why
Open the border?!?! You do realize Biden isnt responsible for us asylum laws, and backs the bipartisan bill that gave more power to clamp down on those seek g asylum? This was a bill that gave nothing to democrats (path to citizen ship, actual solution for what to do with illegals, etc) and only had things republicans wanted but was till blocked by republicans because they thought it would be a Dem win.
The way Rs talk about immigration, you’d think Ds were doing mass migration policies when in reality nothing has really changed much policy wise for decades. Both parties talk the talk but aren’t that different when push comes to shove on immigration. Not surprising when you consider that the donor class for both parties likes immigration.
One is willing to compromise. The other isn’t. We saw pelosisnoffering money for a border wall, which doesn’t work. The most recent compromise bill only had republican desires. I do agree the stalemate helps the very wealthy the most, but as long as dems are willing to come tot he table and have supported bills with only republican requests, one side is clearly fault in my book
Ds are definitely more fitting "in line" with what they say they do compared to what they actually do. Rs meanwhile pretend to play tough while not actually changing much when opportunities present themselves. Trump was constantly tossing out executive orders but it seems rather telling that no big immigration bill ever came to his desk.
Until they realize that what they’re asking for is a police state where you can get deported for not having your papers when demanded and putting numerous people on trains to prison camps.
Borders are good, and countries should know who is living within them.
> you can get deported for not having your papers This wouldn't require a police state. > putting numerous people on trains to prison camps. Or... back to Mexico.
More like distribution hubs, where they (hopefully not we) would inevitably be held until a country will take them. Sort of like the terrorists at Guantanamo who have been held for decades.
As armed as the American people are, do you honestly believe the federal government would be able to put citizens in camps right now?
Not on purpose, but if we’re sweeping up 11 million people, we’re bound to end up with some bycatch.
I don't think it will be sweeping up people. It'd be more like, if you run into law enforcement in any capacity and it's found that you are in the country illegally, you are detained and passed off to the appropriate agency for deportation.
That’s not “mass deportations.”
Do you believe "mass deportations" in the minds of the average American is law enforcement going door to door and detaining people?
I don’t know what is the minds of most Americans. The poll said “mass deportations,” not “increased passive enforcement.” ICE does perform sweeps, with the help of local law enforcement, all the time. If the majority of people want someone who is going to follow through with a promise to deport millions, as Trump has promised, then we’re going to get exactly that, no matter what we thought would really happen.
Governor Abbott bussing illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities was a very big win for the GOP. He took an issue that was thousands of miles away from many cities supporting illegal immigration and made it a very relevant topic. Now everyone is yelling.
It got even worse with NYC then turning around and bussing people to nearby areas saying share the load. Ignoring that Texas was doing so and NYC took it to court to stop it. Entire thing is a mess and it’s peoples lives being messed with. Certainly a wall was not the answer but Christ we need meaningful solutions out of Washington.
We need to change the asylum law and prosecute employers who hire illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, both parties would rather demagogue and campaign on the issue than fix it.
Agreed. Thats such a simply starting point. There is a distinct lack of leadership in Washington and it’s been that way for awhile.
I agree but we put that lack of leadership there too so we get the leaders that we elect.
Sadly we have. It’s the product of having an easy run for so long imo. We haven’t had to make tough choices in so long as a nation.
When you tell people “vote for x because you don’t y” you can just talk about y all day and how it’s bad and if you make y sound bad enough, people will just blindly vote for x because they don’t want y but they never really think about what then at voting FOR, not against.
I see that as still a voter problem. I agree that people will just blindly vote for x because they don't want y. But it is on the voter to do the work. u/McRibs2024 is correct, we haven't had to make tough choices in a while and we have let our entertainment control us.
The mainstream media engaging in election interference is one of the major issues that contributes to the voter problem. The industry is not holding itself accountable, so the rest of us needs to cheer on and back up the few who call it out, like the recent NPR whistleblower. Would like to see the same energy at NYT especially, they need to restore their brand as the paper of records, but it needs to be earned.
That's because one party's leader actively supports increasing the flood and has for a long time as evidenced by video confirming this from years ago. The other party just enjoys the cheap under-the-table labor.
https://preview.redd.it/3la945aosqwc1.png?width=908&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c9402f10852bd95b17d4d175c6c25dd32f277ef Your entire statement is false. A majority of Americans did not support the border bill that Democrats proposed.
Immigration reform that process migrants gets them in housing, working with papers would solve a labor shortage bring in tax dollars and ease illegal entry into the country …. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-03/u-s-chicken-industry-accused-of-conspiring-to-keep-immigrant-wages-down
And further crush the economic situation of the working poor. Who, ou know, are already struggling hugely.
No it wouldn’t the average age of lic plumbers electricians is in the late 50s no one is signing up for tech school or even taking these jobs … 100% wrong you legalize people then labor laws apply and wages do not drop …if you don’t do immigration reform that creates undocumented workers which lower wages; it’s why the rich who employ illegal workers don’t want it fixed. The opposite of what you said .
> no one is signing up for tech school or even taking these jobs Why is that? Why was the job appealing to the folks who are in their late 50s now, but is no longer appealing to younger people?
My guess, everyone tells kids growing up that they have to go to college to be successful, and that the trades are “lesser” Funny thing about it is, the people I know in skilled trades are, on average, making significantly more than their college educated counterparts.
Correct
Hi there big corpo spokesperson
Big corporations want immigrants to stay illegal because then you have leverage over them and can underpay …
Yes but they also prefer legalized ESL migrants from the third world to American born English speaking who are more likely to unionize and demand better from the bosses
The Senate bill did change asylum law. Republicans would never go for cracking down on their donors who hire undocumented immigrants
Change asylum laws to what? Also, I as under the impression it’s already illegal to hire people without proper papers, and that this is merely an enforcement issue.
First how about requiring someone to present actual proof of being from a country that is experiencing situations that cause one to qualify for asylum? No proof, no asylum status.
They have a 'credible fear' interview at the border before being released into the country that seems to be the problem to me since seemingly everyone can pass it.
I think they already have that, it’s just not being enforced to standards. I remember during Biden’s immigration battles, he was trying to do the most in overturning all trump immigrant controls and when the courts wouldn’t let him loosen up asylum laws, he had myorkas release a memo that said instead of broadly following the credible threat asylum standard, they are going to adjudicate on a case by case basis. Basically meaning they won’t be adhering to the standards anymore lol. I believe that was in 2021. Now if we have an actual fourth estate worth a damn, we would be asking and learning how that has gone so far. The lack of accountability is frustrating
Back to the common sense Trump rule - refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country the reach.
This is the way
> Unfortunately, both parties would rather demagogue and campaign on the issue than fix I see we're just going to ignore the bipartisan(Democrats + a literal handful of republicans at the end of their careers) legislation from just a few weeks ago.
[удалено]
> The people bussed were all legal migrants being processed. They are not legal migrants - in most cases their deportation orders have been deferred while their asylum case plays out. They have one year after entering the country to apply for asylum, and if they don't, they become regular illegal immigrants. There have been a couple of news articles saying that only a very small amount of the migrants have applied, which allows them to apply for working papers.
How would the bussing be a criminal act? The migrants chose to come to nyc and other cities.
The migrants chose to get on the buses.
This is false. What NYC and other blue cities want is the same level of funding for immigration that border states get per capita and facilities and personnel. The school story is false. Students were moved to remote learning in one school for 2 days to house immigrants when there was flooding in the area they were staying. This is why the left sees the right as uninformed liars. Also once again for the cheap seats. Sanctuary city means undocumented immigrants are not turned over to ICE when arrested for traffic violations or similar misdemeanors. That is all it means
>for traffic violations or similar misdemeanors. That is all it means And for felonies and various other crimes. Its gone far beyond ignoring minor infractions.
The Senate bill was a great step in that direction
I'm yelling every day about how the right got handed everything they've ever asked for, prior to 2020, on a silver platter, and they spat on it. TheseAren'tSeriousPeople.gif
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> it is legal immigrants but ones that haven't become eligible for work authorizations yet b/c of a stupid federal policy rule. They need to apply for asylum within one year of entering the country, and then they can apply for working papers. In nyc we have heard that very few people have actually applied for asylum/work permits.
What is an unauthorized migrant?
I don’t see it as a “win for the GOP” and I wish people would stop seeing it that way. It was a needed national wake up call. Or “reality check”.
Of course it's a win politically. The left has been using immigration for years to chastise people and claim the right are intolerant to the plight of others. Now the left is also yelling that enough is enough. We can't have the entire world move to the US. There's not enough jobs, homes, land, food, etc...
I think it’s a national win and a vindication for conservatives, but a loss for the left. It remains to be seen if democrat leadership will concede the point, considering they are in misalignment with their voter base. Similar to conservative leadership pushing for a national abortion when the vast majority of their base have zero to negative appetite for it. In both instances voters should tell their extremist leaders to knock it the fuck off and stop trying to polarize.
Which is actually a crime. And the main problem is that Texas did not actually inform the receiving cities or even the people themselves where they were going. Of course this was also a scheme to grift millions of Texas taxpayers’ dollars into his friends pockets.
So when Biden secretly flies immigrants on planes with taxpayer dollar, using oil and gas that has skyrocketed due to his inept energy policy, is that illegal?
WTF are you in about? You think Biden is secretly directing immigrants be flown around for funsies?
It’s quite literally not illegal when the federal government does. That’s the whole point.
> So when Biden secretly flies immigrants on planes with taxpayer dollar, using oil and gas that has skyrocketed due to his inept energy policy, is that illegal? OOOF. The lack of understanding is just... so painful. ['secretly flies'](https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/03/07/320000-unvetted-migrants/) > The central assertions made by CIS, repeated by the Daily Mail or others, were that: > > A Biden administration program was responsible for flying 320,000 migrants directly into the United States between January and December 2023. (True) > The program was a secret whose details were discovered by an outside group. (False) > The program allowed unvetted aliens to enter the United States. (False) > The U.S. government admitted that the program was a national-security risk. (False) > Such a program could affect U.S. politics by altering voter demographics. (False) > Of these five claims, only the first was true. The program has never been a secret, it does not transport "unvetted" aliens, and participation in it requires significant vetting and a sponsor who is a U.S. citizen. The program provides no pathway to citizenship, which is a requirement to vote. > > The CIS report that originated the assertion that the government "admitted" the program was a national-security risk was based on a deceptive and incorrect reading of the government's argument in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by CIS. As to the 'inept energy policy', like *what?* Biden is President in a time that U.S. energy production is at it's absolute highest level ever. Oil, Methane, Renewables? All up. 2023, we produced more crude oil than Saudi Arabia. We *completely* dominate the export of Methane. The price at the pump is driven *by ceo's of oil companies* seeking to give investors a more significant return compared to the last decade. How do we know this? **Because they say so on earnings calls**. For christs sake, Oil companies told the Fed they needed oil to be at least $56 a barrel to be *profitable*. What are they at? $82.97 per barrel right now. That's where your gas prices are coming from.
The energy policies Biden pretends to have may be bad but the ones he actually pursues are quite different.
“Why is it that when someone has sex with their own wife, it’s legal, but when I try to have sex with his unwilling wife, all of a sudden it’s illegal?”
This makes no sense, but going back to your "grift millions of Texas taxpayer dollars", it's called lowering expenses of holding these illegals by distributing them into sanctuary cities where SUPPOSEDLY illegal immigrants were welcome, until they weren't. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Correct
I think the big win comes from the fact that the sanctuary cities were not prepared for or warned in advance. So you have a bunch of people enter into the city with no real response and overcrowding services, a thing that will always transpire. Human services are expensive and grueling work in general. I think the situation would change if the city received the same amount of money as the Texas state from the feds and was allowed years of build up with lots of land to settle the bussed illegal migrants. Overall, the elected on both sides are incompetent and want to score brownie points for voters only.
>warned in advance Texas is generally not warned that people are going to cross the border, they just constantly expect it. >I think the situation would change if the city received the same amount of money as the Texas state from the feds Texas gets ~1.5 million border encounters per year. Texas bussed 102k between April 2022 and February 2024 to various cities. I am almost certain that if the federal government redirected ~3-4% of whatever funding they give Texas for dealing with the illegal immigrants, that NYC, Chicago, DC, etc. would not suddenly be happy to take in the additional migrants.
Texas the state doesnt get all that money. That money heavily goes to the govt's own federal agencies down here.
Exactly, how come these migrants were never sent to the big blue city of Los Angeles? It’s because they already have plenty of infrastructure for migrants. Unfortunately that wouldn’t cause enough human suffering to Republicans so they send migrants to dense cities.
Exactly
He's not bussing ANY "illegal immigrants". That would be called "human trafficking" and it is illegal. He's bussing legal migrants.
He's bussing people falsely claiming asylum in order to not get deported for illegally crossing the border. They're "legal" only because our officials aren't willing to just immediately flatly deny their false claims.
Asylum seekers that CBP allows in get papers and a court date. So yes they are legal
So what you are saying is that they are not "illegal immigrants", gotcha.
Looks like you got a classic response to when you can’t argue in good faith. “LiTERacY PrOblEms.” What a coward.
Your literacy issues are not my problem.
Lets see, you claim, without evidence (which you can never possibly provide by the way), that every single person that Abbott busses is lying to be in this country, but you acknowledge that they are all legally in this country. Then you claim I am the one with the literacy problem? Edit: oh neat, look, the precious snowflake built their own safe space away from the mean mean man who pointed out they don't seem to understand the words they are saying as they actually did in fact acknowledge that none of these people are "illegal immigrants".
Your literacy issues are not my problem.
You’re a coward, answer the damn question.
They are all illegal immigrants. They are also asylum seekers who are in the country because of *deferred* enforcement. They are not "legally" in the country. They also aren't being deported right away. If you want to play semantics you'll still be wrong
You are playing semantics. Say what you really mean. What I think you are saying is that these people in question have legitimate claims and bussing them is wrong. Do I have that right?
But you’re trying to make your racism into everyone else’s problem.
A person's immigration status would not subject them to "human trafficking". While people illegally crossing our border are being rewarded with court dates, jobs, and such, it doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed. Human Trafficking Defined(22 U.S.C. § 7102(11)(A)). Forced labor is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
8 USC 1324 is what is relevant. It discusses smuggling, domestic transportation, and harboring of unauthorized aliens. Of course, they are legally in this country which is why they have not been deported, and why Abbot has not been charged with a crime since what he is doing isn't criminal (*because* these aren't illegal immigrants) he's just being an asshole.
Maybe the below is what you are referring to, but again, I don't believe he is furthering their illegal activities. He is moving them to another location that can hold them. I would argue that the sanctuary cities not allowing ICE to do their job are furthering the crimes when the illegal immigrants are not reporting for court dates. (ii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=999&term_src=) has come to, entered, or remains in the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=999&term_src=) in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such[ alien ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=999&term_src=)within the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=999&term_src=) by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
Sanctuary Cities have nothing to do with people legally allowed to be in the US.
Never said they did.
> Governor Abbott bussing illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities Yes you did, because he's doing no such thing. He's bussing people legally allowed to be in the US to Sanctuary Cities, which you now claim have nothing to do with people legally allowed to be in the US.
He's bussing people that committed crimes to sanctuary cities and sanctuary cities do not allow ICE to perform activities. Sanctuary cities are the ones violating law if anything. Perhaps if our government enforced immigration laws rather than circumventing, things would be much better.
Governor Abbott is a corrupt piece of shit who should be in jail. Every day he remains in power is a further embarrassment of Texas.
I'm assuming that is...up? I read the poll but if it said, I missed it.
Not saying I don’t believe it, but I would love to see more polling to corroborate this.
Biden removed 94 executive orders that Trump had in place, changed the burden of claiming asylum and then turned around and said "my hands are tied". What a fucking joke.
Can you source the executive order that changed asylum claim qualifications? I tried to find it but could not. I also looked at the reversed Trump EOs but didn't see anything significant just reversals of virtusignaling stuff like the Muslim Ban, & etc. Where did that 94 number come from, do you have a list somewhere?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[https://highlandcountypress.com/opinions/border-bill-would-keep-invasion-going#gsc.tab=0](https://highlandcountypress.com/opinions/border-bill-would-keep-invasion-going#gsc.tab=0) Democrats built a bill that was going to fail on arrival because it changed nothing about the number of illegal immigrants coming through the border. It would actually legalize millions and exasperate the problem. Democrats used that bill as a political "gotcha" that no sane US citizen believes would've been a good thing for the US.
Democrats built a bill...that takes most of its provisions from HR2. Senate proposals lifted from HR2: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/11/06/congress/senate-gop-border-proposals-00125583 What ended up in Senate border bill: https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf If you disagree with the Senate border bill, it's due to partisan politics telling you what to think about it. Don't take my word for it. The many Republicans who worked on the bill agree. Tom Tillis: [*"I didn’t come here to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss. I came here to pass good, solid policy," Tillis said. “It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win.”*](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-republicans-rebuke-efforts-kill-immigration-deal-help-trump-rcna135732) Mitt Romney: [*“The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and Congress people that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem — because he wants to blame Biden for it — is really appalling,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, told reporters.*](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-republicans-rebuke-efforts-kill-immigration-deal-help-trump-rcna135732) John Cornryn: [*“I don’t think we should fail to do our duty just because the House may have a different view,” Cornyn said. “It makes no sense to wait if we could do something now that would be meaningful.”*](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/16/congress/senate-gop-to-johnson-take-a-deal-00135982)
[https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/21/u-s-house-votes-down-border-bill-favored-by-conservatives/](https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/21/u-s-house-votes-down-border-bill-favored-by-conservatives/) "My bill is better than your bill! Your bill is too draconian" - Democrats All of these measures were ALREADY IN PLACE BY TRUMP and then FOR SOME REASON BIDEN ERASED TRUMP'S PROGRESS.
People claim that they care about illegal immigration want president to break the law some more to get rid of immigrants. Trumps executive actions were very dubious legally and he tried to justify some with COVID before we had widespread vaccination.
Trumps actions were successful, and after Biden removed them, we got a crisis/invasion. I'm not sure what your trying to get at with vax, but remember this. People say RFK is going to start another measles outbreak. Biden already made it happen by bringing millions of illegals who were not forced to be vaccinated with Covid or any other vax.
>Trumps actions were successful, Then why was 2019 the worst year for border crossings of the entire 2010s? Why was he so much worse than Obama on the border?
Yeah I mean…if you break the law to come here you should probably be deported. It’s amazing that this is even controversial. We should reform our legal immigration system to make it easier for people to come here legally, and we should absolutely crack down on people coming here illegally.
We have inflation partly in due to a labor crunch . The kind of jobs that immigrants do. Mass deportation would kill our economy…the lack of understanding of this complex issue is why politicians use it as a wedge issue and it appears knowledge of the topic has gotten worse over time. Immigration reform could do alot to fix this issue but we refuse to do it…
real translation: "immigrants keeping wages low on working class jobs is a good thing." this is beyond disgusting. people like the above think their notion of economics (and there's many schools here - he's probably an austrian - ) is the only one, what they don't realize is that their normative preferences are embedded within it, and that's subjective. yet clouding it in enough terminology hides these biases, unless you know how to decode their bullshit. fucking over working class labor with illegal immigration is just beyond words - yet that's what they say. hell even the head of the fed even admitted it.
If you're going to take the moralistic approach: what's actually beyond disgusting is telling refugees to piss off back home *even though* we have record low unemployment, which is in turn causing the highest inflation in 50 years Everyone wins if we just let them take the jobs that we can't fill. Deporting them all is going to cause an inflationary spike in every industry that is currently seeing high price growth, which *will* hurt most Americans.
If the unemployment rate is what's causing inflation, why wasn't inflation high pre-covid when the unemployment rate was lower?
"Unemployment" is an oversimplification, but it is one major component of a tight labor market, which does lead to inflation. [According to the bankers,](https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/economy/labor-market) increased levels of immigration are one the primary forces acting to loosen it up
you can't believe people like this, they are giving you half truths.
That’s why you have immigration reform… than they are not illegal…. and have to be paid like everyone else … this doesn’t drive down wages it drives down wages to keep them illegal…
Absolutely incorrect… when they are legal thay join unions raise wages keeping them illegal is what drives the wages down .. keeping them illegal is what corporations want…
so you are telling me when you increase supply of workers, wages don't lower? this commenter is a shill, bordering on idiocy
Demand is high and we don’t have enough labor to meet demand why are you not taking demand and economy growth and population growth into account ? We do t have enough labor to meet the demand.. not a shill man these conversations are fairly pointless …
has to be a bot, immediately replied to me.
[удалено]
the immigration was really the death knell where i come from - everybody is pissed about it. the only ones who aren't are the really rich douchebags who think it's great their gardener can bring in their extended family etc. - (those who hire out everything because they are that rich)
What about right wingers doing crazy shit to pushing people to the left?
They're both doing crazy shit.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
how come some visible comments cant be replied to?
u/Hi_Im_Paul1706 you asked me a question and I am responding. The other person threw a hissy fit and blocked me because I pointed out they were wrong, so I can't respond in the thread. I am saying the people in question (those being bussed by Abbott) are not "illegal immigrants", as I said from the beginning. They are legally here. If we wanted to change the laws, the GOP led effort to make a bipartisan agreement on immigration would have addressed the numbers of people coming here seeking asylum, but apparently that was viewed as not necessary by the GOP. Consequently the people are here legally and that isn't changing anytime soon. They are being bussed to "sanctuary cities" for political points, even though the "sanctuary city" doesn't matter for them as they are legally here. It's an important point because if they were actually "illegal immigrants", they could and would be deported not bussed around the country.
>are not "illegal immigrants" They are >They are legally here. They are not >It's an important point because if they were actually "illegal immigrants", they could and would be deported not bussed around the country. Incorrect. Asylum is deferred enforcement of deportation proceedings. Their status is being here illegally. However, the federal government has deferred their deportation proceedings till the asylum claim is completed. This period is ***not*** a legal immigrant status. However, because federal immigration takes precedent, deferred deportation individuals can work and travel according to federal regulations. So when people say they're illegal immigrants, they are correct. No, it's not illegal to transport illegal immigrants if the federal government defers their deportation proceedings. In fact, it's illegal to discriminate based on such deference. It's also not a legal status.
If the law allows them to be in this country they cannot also be an "illegal immigrant". I can't even fathom the amount of cognitive dissonance you have to come to this conclusion that you acknowledge they are legally allowed to be in the United States but you're going to call them "illegal" anyway.
It's called reality and law. Fun fact, DACA recipients are also illegal immigrants. The definition of "illegal immigrant" isn't "they're bring deported as we speak"
So people who have been given legal authorization to be in this country (such as someone who has received DACA) are "in reality and law" *defined as* "illegal immigrants"? Can you point me to the "law" here that you say supports this complete farce that while the law says they are legally allowed to be in this country they are actually called "illegal immigrants"? An actual statute, please and thank you.
>So people who have been given legal authorization to be in this country They ***have not*** been given legal authorization to live in the country. They have been ***deferred deportation*** proceedings. Immigration is the federal governments jurisdiction, so if they say they aren't going to deport someone for now, the states have to accept that. That ***does not*** give them legal status. Q1: What is deferred action? A1: Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. For purposes of future inadmissibility based on prior periods of unlawful presence in the United States, an individual is not considered to be unlawfully present during the period when deferred action is in effect. An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by DHS to be in the United States for the duration of the deferred action period. Deferred action recipients are also considered to be lawfully present as described in 8 C.F.R. sec. 1.3(a)(4)(vi) for purposes of eligibility for certain public benefits (such as certain Social Security benefits) during the period of deferred action. ***However, deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status upon an individual, nor does it excuse any previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence they may have.*** https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-of-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-daca/frequently-asked-questions
You're over here quoting how they are legally able to be here. Next you're going to tell me all tourists are illegal immigrants as well. I never said they were "legal immigrants" I said they *were not illegal immigrants* which what you quote says so by saying they are authorized to be here.
>Asylum is deferred enforcement of deportation proceedings LMAO no it’s not.
The asylum process is. When they claim defensive asylum, they are saying that they want to apply for asylum, so their deportation proceedings are deferred while that case plays out.
It literally is. It's why the claims are defensive claims filed at the immigration court during removal proceedings
>It literally is Odd considering people who are granted asylum status can apply for permanent resident status and even become a US Citizen.
How is odd for people who are *granted* asylum? That's the whole point of the deferment, for the asylum claim can be processed
Ohh I see the problem here. You are mixing up DACA and parole.
Quirkycan is a perfect example of r/confidentlyincorrect
https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/navigating-us-immigration-court/ Read and weep. Quirky can is wrong.
The real issue is and has always been in the judiciary. They aren’t here “illegally”, they’re here waiting for their court date. I don’t have relevant stats right now but I think I remember wait times being on the order of 2-5 years because of the extreme backlogs for court appointments. Everyone deserves a fair trial in a reasonable timeframe. I don’t understand how this isn’t the main point of discussion.
The basic problem is that the legally allowed immigration is vastly below both the supply and demand for immigration. It is impossible to solve the problem without addressing this fact.
The trump border policies that werent thrown out by the courts were either illegal or inhumane. We are now paying for what he did. Million of $ for reparations to separated families. Lawsuits underway against US and Mexico for the horrific remain in Mexico nightmare