Where Do Migrants Get The Idea That President Biden Has An "Open Borders" Policy???

[ll74]

Here is a big part of the problem (fyi - walls and rejections don't actually fix this problem)

There is a backlog of over 700k (as of 2022) for asylum cases. The answer is not to pause a law, but to increase resources to clear out the backlog.

https://trac.syr.edu/reports/705/

And yes, Biden saying that he will treat people like human beings means that we will have more refugees. They typically flee to countries that treat them fairly rather than just treating them like shitty people who don't deserve what everyone else deserves.

But if you are of the mindset that these people should be treated like shit, I can see where the above may be confusing.

 

[icanhelp1]

The Biden administration created a policy to reject any asylum claims outside of a port of entry.

The court system told them to fuck off and denied their policy.

(You may have seen RG's thread celebrating the ruling since it went against the guy he hates)

It doesn't matter where they cross or that they break the law by doing so - their claims of asylum are treated the same due to the actual law created by Congress.

Biden has the authority under title 8 to restrict asylum cases

The Biden administration created a policy to reject any asylum claims outside of a port of entry.

The courts did rule, however the use of *parole* has the same effect as no control at all. 145,000 migrants in August released into the US with a promise to adhere to a distant future court date. Multiply 145,000 x 12 = lots and lots of money and treasure spent on people that don’t belong here. In the meantime veterans and our homeless take a back seat.


“The important part of the ruling is that it allows the Biden administration rule that tries to limit asylum eligibility for people who have gone through other countries and not applied there, it allows that to stay in place,” Krikorian said. “There’s no excuse for anyone, any third-country national, who has passed through Mexico — let alone all the other countries they pass through — to even be permitted to apply for asylum in the United States, because the very fact of their presence at the Rio Grande, or at other places on the border, is itself evidence that they’re not real asylum-seekers, because if they were, they would have already sought it somewhere else.”

 

[ll74]

Biden has the authority under title 8 to restrict asylum cases

And he does.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/politics/refugee-cap/index.html

The courts did rule, however the use of *parole* has the same effect as no control at all. 145,000 migrants in August released into the US with a promise to adhere to a distant future court date. Multiply 145,000 x 12 = lots and lots of money and treasure spent on people that don’t belong here. In the meantime veterans and our homeless take a back seat.

You don't decide whether anyone belongs here. That is up to the immigration courts.

Our homeless do not take a back seat. There are just as many resources spent on our homeless population.

“The important part of the ruling is that it allows the Biden administration rule that tries to limit asylum eligibility for people who have gone through other countries and not applied there, it allows that to stay in place,” Krikorian said. “There’s no excuse for anyone, any third-country national, who has passed through Mexico — let alone all the other countries they pass through — to even be permitted to apply for asylum in the United States, because the very fact of their presence at the Rio Grande, or at other places on the border, is itself evidence that they’re not real asylum-seekers, because if they were, they would have already sought it somewhere else.”

A person who claims asylum after crossing multiple countries has the same rights as those who don't. Feel free to lobby to change the law if you don't like that.

 

[icanhelp1]

And he does.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/politics/refugee-cap/index.html


You don't decide whether anyone belongs here. That is up to the immigration courts.

Our homeless do not take a back seat. There are just as many resources spent on our homeless population.


A person who claims asylum after crossing multiple countries has the same rights as those who don't. Feel free to lobby to change the law if you don't like that.

Fuck off with your bullshit!

 

[ll74]

Fuck off with your bullshit!

Everything I've said is objective fact.

You're the one who is supporting bullshit because you believe in those lies. It's literally why this thread was created....to call you out on it.

Feel free to refute anything I've said with evidence

 

[KeithD]

It's always been my thought that something needs to be done to help those countries so people would rather stay 'home'. But that doesn't seem to work. Somebody got the bright idea to 'help' Iraq for example.

That's actually a constructive at least partial answer to the issue. I don't think it's been tried out well enough. Democratic administrations have worked on it behind the scenes, but it should be tackled in the public eye.

 

[ll74]

That's actually a constructive at least partial answer to the issue. I don't think it's been tried out well enough. Democratic administrations have worked on it behind the scenes, but it should be tackled in the public eye.

Biden and Harris spent a large portion of 2021 and 2022 working with South American governments to establish more resources within the countries to prevent people from fleeing.

Unfortunately, many of the governments that contribute to the problem aren't wanting to work with us on anything.

 

[icanhelp1]

That's actually a constructive at least partial answer to the issue. I don't think it's been tried out well enough. Democratic administrations have worked on it behind the scenes, but it should be tackled in the public eye.

Easy solution, defund those countries, most are corrupt to the core. Defund corrupt NGOs.

 

[ll74]

Easy solution, defund those countries, most are corrupt to the core. Defund corrupt NGOs.

We have defunded them, dip shit.

 

[icanhelp1]

We have defunded them, dip shit.

The United States is the largest single donor for the response to the Venezuela regional crisis. This brings total U.S. assistance to more than $2.8 billion since 2017, including more than $2.5 billion in humanitarian assistance and $387 million in development assistance.Mar 17, 2023

 

[Lazaran]

That's actually a constructive at least partial answer to the issue. I don't think it's been tried out well enough. Democratic administrations have worked on it behind the scenes, but it should be tackled in the public eye.

It’s constructive, unless it’s just basically paying a ransom so countries won’t "encourage" their people to migrate to the US.

The establishment of education and employment opportunities in countries is the goal, but does that goal really get achieved in any meaningful manner; or do a few "leaders" simply pocket the lions share of improvement funds and keep their oppressed people inside their borders by force???



On a side note:

I think that fucking train line that carries untold thousands of migrants north should be taken / put out of commission.

If that promise of a cheap and relatively safe means of long distance travel wasn’t present, I suspect many migrants wouldn’t attempt the journey.

The fact that the Mexican government has allowed that train line to operate the way it does says it all.

*nods*

 

[ll74]

The United States is the largest single donor for the response to the Venezuela regional crisis. This brings total U.S. assistance to more than $2.8 billion since 2017, including more than $2.5 billion in humanitarian assistance and $387 million in development assistance.Mar 17, 2023

Yep. We should be. We're the closest and most.capable.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yep. We should be. We're the closest and most.capable.

So much for being defunded. I also stated NGOs that facilitate dangerous migration should also be defunded, they too are morally corrupt.

Most capable? 33 trillion in debt doesn’t make us more capable, more like our political leadership is clueless.

 

[ll74]

So much for being defunded. I also stated NGOs that facilitate dangerous migration should also be defunded, they too are morally corrupt.

Most capable? 33 trillion in debt doesn’t make us more capable, more like our political leadership is clueless.

We have sanctioned the shit out of them. Humanitarian relief is a separate topic. NGOs need funding because they support human suffering. The percentage of "corrupt" NGOs is minimal and is addressed when they are discovered.

 

[jaF0]

It’s constructive, unless it’s just basically paying a ransom so countries won’t "encourage" their people to migrate to the US.

The establishment of education and employment opportunities in countries is the goal, but does that goal really get achieved in any meaningful manner; or do a few "leaders" simply pocket the lions share of improvement funds and keep their oppressed people inside their borders by force???

That's been the problem since the 60s at least.

Colombia, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua ....

We've tried one thing or another in those and other places.

 

[KeithD]

If that promise of a cheap and relatively safe means of long distance travel wasn’t present, I suspect many migrants wouldn’t attempt the journey.

True, but that doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling. I can understand and empathize with the need to immigrate for a better, or less-threatened life. Though my father's family arrived here in the early eighteenth century, I strongly suspect it was as a transported criminal because in was in Georgia. My maternal family came in the last years of the nineteenth century, forced to immigrate because their land in England didn't support the size the family had grown to--and someone had to leave. I can't deny the desire of someone to leave from extreme poverty or a threat to life to somewhere with more opportunity and safer now just because it worked for my family years ago.

I wouldn't just buy off the authorities in a Latin American country to try to hold people there who decided it would be better for them in the States. I'd support programs that made life better for them where they live and that worked against drug cartels. These cartels mostly exist to service the drug appetites in the United States. (So, any programs to lessen the drug appetites in the States would be helping to lessen the immigration problem as well.)

 

[jaF0]

Costa Rica has a fairly large population of ex-Americans, but which side are they on?

 

[Lazaran]

True, but that doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling. I can understand and empathize with the need to immigrate for a better, or less-threatened life. Though my father's family arrived here in the early eighteenth century, I strongly suspect it was as a transported criminal because in was in Georgia. My maternal family came in the last years of the nineteenth century, forced to immigrate because their land in England didn't support the size the family had grown to--and someone had to leave. I can't deny the desire of someone to leave from extreme poverty or a threat to life to somewhere with more opportunity and safer now just because it worked for my family years ago.

I wouldn't just buy off the authorities in a Latin American country to try to hold people there who decided it would be better for them in the States. I'd support programs that made life better for them where they live and that worked against drug cartels. These cartels mostly exist to service the drug appetites in the United States. (So, any programs to lessen the drug appetites in the States would be helping to lessen the immigration problem as well.)

I certainly agree with the humanitarian sentiments; and big picture, the most humane thing to do, would be to shut down that train line as a migration vehicle.

Humanity isn’t going to be served if the migration issue gets orange satan re-elected.

Not to mention the world-wide humanitarian crisis that will unfold if the US becomes too destabilized due to the migration issue.

This is a very delicate situation at the moment imho.

*nods*