Logos Stick said:
Max Boredom said:
deddog said:
I'll start at the bottom:
WTF do you need a bill to enforce the border????? How did trump do it? Are you seriously trying to gaslight us into thinking Democrats aren't for illegal immigration?
I covered this in the Mark Kelly thread, but the simple answer is that most of Trump's actions to deal with immigration were illegal. Some of them were blocked by the courts (like forcing asylum seekers to go through ports of entry) and others hadn't been blocked yet when he left office. The new bill would make the law airtight so actions won't get shot down in court. Trump's actions were effective deterrents because they made the process painful and scared people away, but they were illegal and unsustainable. That's how he did it and that's why we need to improve the laws.
Also, you need to step back from the conspiracy theories. The "migrant invasion" is racially tinged fear mongering. Our immigration system is a problem, but there's no plot to overthrow the country. That's weirdo nonsense that anyone with half a brain can see right through. Biden has repatriated more unauthorized migrants than Trump did in his entire term. The difference is that he's doing it within the bounds of the law.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/source_charts/pb-2024-deportations-fig1-repats.png
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/biden-deportation-record
The bolded part is simply more gaslighting by a liberal sock.
Forcing entry through a legal port of entry is not illegal, it is the absolute correct and legal way to gain entry when claiming asylum. You can't sneak over illegally then shout "asylum". Anyone with a brain cell knows that. If so, then literally everyone on the planet - right now - could swim over via the Rio Grande illegally and claim asylum. All 7+ billion!!!!!! I laugh hard at your ridiculous nonsense!
Claiming other EOs "would have been blocked if given time" is an asinine argument. You have no idea what would have been ruled legal or not.
The most effective thing he did was threaten Mexico with sanctions, which he has the power to do. Your post is complete bull**** for the most part. Let me clue you in: this whole asylum thing didn't just become a thing after 200 years because it is legal. It became a thing because you libs are abusing the law.
No need for the name calling. I've been nothing but factual and courteous and I'm open to whatever information you have to share.
I'm sorry you view it as gaslighting, but you are just misinformed about what our laws are and how the courts have responded to actions taken by the Trump administration. Take a look at the facts below and tell me what other laws you think I'm overlooking.
Let's start with a quick recap of our laws.
- The 1951 Refugee Convention defined protections for refugees and asylum seekers. The U.S. Senate adopted these protections when they ratified the 1967 Protocol to the Refugee Convention.
- To bring U.S. law inline with this international agreement, the Refugee Act of 1980 amended the US Immigration and Nationality Act.
- The Immigration and Nationality Act is one law that courts referenced in blocking some of Trump's action. Here is the exact text of the law dealing with whether asylum seekers have to cross at a port of entry:
Quote:
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum
Clearly, asylum seekers do not have to cross or present themselves at a port of entry. Enacting policies forcing them to do so violates US and international law.
Further, you can take a look at
this analysis by the American Bar Association which clearly points out, "There are no
numerical limits on the number of asylum seekers who can enter our country." It would be completely impractical for the US to accept 7 billion asylum seekers, but the practical limit and the legal limit are two different things.
Lastly, the 1967 Protocol prohibits "impos[ing] penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees." Meaning, you can't imprison people, fine them or take away their children when they seek asylum, even if they entered the country illegally.
So,
1) asylum seekers do not have to cross at a port of entry,
2) there is no limit on how many people can request asylum and
3) we cannot punish asylum seekers.. It's obvious that you (or "anyone with a brain cell") would have written the laws differently, but they are what they are at the moment.
Let's not try to pretend that many actions by the Trump admin weren't struck down by the courts. You can call it gaslighting, but facts speak for themselves:
- 2017 - ICE ended the Family Case Management Program and rolled out a policy of prolonged and indefinite detention of asylum seekers; Blocked by a federal court in 2018 in Damus v. McAleenan
- 2018 - Jeff Sessions announced a "zero-tolerance" policy to criminally prosecute asylum seekers, triggering widespread family separation. Federal judge ruled against this practice in Ms. L v Ice; Civil lawsuits are still ongoing for civil rights violations
- 2018 - Jeff Sessions introduced policies to block asylum seekers suffering from domestic and gang violence; Federal judge blocked this in Dec 2018 in Grace v. Whitaker
- 2018 - CBP implemented "turn back" / metering policy to turn away asylum seekers and force them to wait weeks or months before applying; Federal judge found this illegal in Al Otro Lado v. Nielsen
- 2018 - Trump admin barred migrants crossing outside ports of entry from asylum eligibility; Multiple lawsuits found this illegal, including at the appeals court level (for example East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump)
- 2019 - MPP (Remain in Mexico) - In April 2019 a federal district court in California granted a preliminary injunction, which would have temporarily halted the policy. The Ninth Circuit initially stayed the injunction allowing MPP to remain in effect but restored it in February 2020, ruling unequivocally that MPP violates both U.S. and international law. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court, which put the injunction on hold as it considered the case, leaving the policy in place until the Biden administration terminated it. Following the termination, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court, which vacated the injunction as moot. The labor union representing asylum officers filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to strike down MPP as a directive that was "fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our nation and our international and domestic legal obligations."
- 2019 - USCIS issued a memo to take away protections from unaccompanied minors during the asylum process; Blocked by a federal judge with a restraining order in August 2019 (J.O.P. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security), settlement discussions are ongoing
Once you understand the laws underpinning our asylum system, it's obvious why these were found to be illegal by the courts. It should also be obvious why we need to update our laws to deal with the surge of asylum seekers at our southern border. The border bill wasn't perfect and no party got everything they wanted, but it was a compromise that started moving in the right direction.
deddog said:
Trump didn't stop illegal immigration by laws, he stopped it by refusing to encourage, and by threatening and sending people back. All that time Democrats were *****ing and moaning about xenophobia. Your revisionist history notwithstanding, don't think we've forgotten that.
This guys gets it! Trump's actions weren't based on laws, they were threats that scared people and drove down immigration numbers. As I already said, the tactic was effective. But it wasn't legal, it's not sustainable and we can do better as a county.
