Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »


Sullivan: The Dem's Bubble on Immigration

By NoCoupForYou follow NoCoupForYou   2019 Jun 29, 12:01pm 445 views   9 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    

Take the tragic tale of Oscar Ramirez and his young daughter Valeria, the father and daughter captured in death in that heartbreaking photograph. Ramirez’s widow explained to the Washington Post why her husband wanted to move to America: He wanted “a better future for their girl.” This is an admirable goal, but it is classic economic immigration, and it would appear, based on what we know, that it has absolutely nothing to do with asylum. Here again is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services definition: “Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”

But somehow the courts have decided that you qualify for asylum if there is simply widespread crime or violence where you live, and Ramirez was also going to use that argument as well. A government need not persecute you; you just have to experience an unsafe environment that your government is failing to suppress. This so expands the idea of asylum, in my view, as to render it meaningless.

Courts have also expanded asylum to include domestic violence, determining that women in abusive relationships are a “particular social group” and thereby qualify. In other words, every woman on the planet who has experienced domestic abuse can now come to America and claim asylum. Also everyone on the planet who doesn’t live in a stable, orderly, low-crime society. Literally billions of human beings now have the right to asylum in America. As climate change worsens, more will rush to claim it. All they have to do is show up.

Last month alone, 144,000 people were detained at the border making an asylum claim. This year, about a million Central Americans will have relocated to the U.S. on those grounds. To add to this, a big majority of the candidates in the Democratic debates also want to remove the grounds for detention at all, by repealing the 1929 law that made illegal entry a criminal offense and turning it into a civil one. And almost all of them said that if illegal immigrants do not commit a crime once they’re in the U.S., they should be allowed to become citizens.

How, I ask, is that not practically open borders? The answer I usually get is that all these millions will have to, at some point, go to court hearings and have their asylum cases adjudicated. The trouble with that argument is that only 44 percent actually turn up for their hearings; and those who do show up and whose claims nonetheless fail can simply walk out of the court and know they probably won’t be deported in the foreseeable future.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement forcibly removed 256,086 people in 2018, 57 percent of whom had committed crimes since they arrived in the U.S. So that’s an annual removal rate of 2 percent of the total undocumented population of around 12 million. That means that for 98 percent of undocumented aliens, in any given year, no consequences will follow for crossing the border without papers. At the debates this week, many Democratic candidates argued that the 43 percent of deportees who had no criminal record in America should not have been expelled at all and been put instead on a path to citizenship. So that would reduce the annual removal rate of illegal immigrants to a little more than 1 percent per year. In terms of enforcement of the immigration laws, this is a joke. It renders the distinction between a citizen and a noncitizen close to meaningless.

None of this reality was allowed to intervene in the Democratic debates this week. At one point, one moderator tellingly spoke about Obama’s record of deporting ” 3 million Americans.” In that bubble, there were no negatives to mass immigration at all, and no concern for existing American citizens’ interests in not having their wages suppressed through this competition. There was no concession that child separation and “metering” at the border to slow the crush were both innovated by Obama, trying to manage an overwhelmed system. Candidates vied with each other to speak in Spanish. Every single one proposed amnesty for all those currently undocumented in the U.S., except for criminals. Every single one opposes a wall. There was unanimous support for providing undocumented immigrants immediately with free health care. There was no admission that Congress needed to tighten asylum law. There was no concern that the Flores decision had massively incentivized bringing children to game the system, leaving so many vulnerable to untold horrors on a journey no child should ever be forced to make.

What emerged was their core message to the world: Get here without papers and you’ll receive humane treatment while you’re processed, you’ll never be detained, you’ll get work permits immediately, and you’ll have access to publicly funded health care and a path to citizenship if you don’t commit a crime. This amounts to an open invitation to anyone on the planet to just show up and cross the border. The worst that can happen is you get denied asylum by a judge, in which case you can just disappear and there’s a 1 percent chance that you’ll be caught in a given year. Who wouldn’t take those odds?
1   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 29, 12:35pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

We need a huge freaking 40 foot wall with barbed wire and machine gun stations.

Without that, there will soon be no America to defend.
2   HEYYOU   ignore (44)   2019 Jun 29, 12:43pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why are there any illegals in America when the Chief Executive is a Rep/Con?
Because,talking head failures.
If the the trash,slime,scum Republicans would do their job we wouldn't need no steenkin' wall.
I'll ask this a thousand times.How many Rep/Cons are using illegals?
The question alone makes the Republicans look even more stupid.
3   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2019 Jun 29, 2:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
We need a huge freaking 40 foot wall with barbed wire and machine gun stations.

Without that, there will soon be no America to defend.

Or just a policy of prosecuting people and companies that hire illegals.
4   NoCoupForYou   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 29, 2:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The fix is so easy: All it takes is a wee bit of adjustment to the US Code or even an EO - to qualify for an asylum hearing, you have to be the victim of government repression.

Economic migrants are NOT valid Asylees.
5   NoCoupForYou   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 29, 2:46pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        


—“TRUMP”was said 1,326 times.

—“FREE” was said 683 times.

— Spanish was spoken 14 times.

— And “America”
was said twice.#TRUMP2020

— BibleBeltMomma ⭐️🇺🇸⭐️ (@BibleBeltDarlin) June 29, 2019

6   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 29, 2:48pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
Patrick says
We need a huge freaking 40 foot wall with barbed wire and machine gun stations.

Without that, there will soon be no America to defend.

Or just a policy of prosecuting people and companies that hire illegals.

Yes, this is the real answer.

Hard prison time for all employers of illegals.

No fines, mandatory prison.
7   rd6B   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 29, 3:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
you have to be the victim of government repression

even under CURRENT international laws, your first destination should give you asylum, e.i. Guatemalans should be given asylum in Mexico. Also, I do not believe economic migrants qualify under int'l asylum laws as well.
8   RC2006   ignore (3)   2019 Jun 29, 4:06pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Its All a globalist liberal scam, divide and conquer.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions