Migrant Caravan

[93henfan]

Bingo. The US has taken more than its fair share of immigrants, legal and illegal, from 2nd-3rd world countries. There's 7.6 billion give or take people in the world. If he had his way, 5+ billion could show up at the US doorstep and be let in after uttering 'asylum'..

If they're not STEM these people provide zero benefit to the US, and there's no reason to let them in.

I don't believe that at all. We need low skill workers as well. It should be a mix of skills/talents. But I couldn't say what the percentages should be off the top of my head.

I caught the evening news on the local station (Salisbury MD) last night. They had the owner of a crab processing operation in Crisfield saying that he wouldn’t be operating at 100% this year because he can’t get enough Americans to do the work and his migrant pool is drying up.

[Chizzang]

I don't believe that at all. We need low skill workers as well. It should be a mix of skills/talents. But I couldn't say what the percentages should be off the top of my head.

That is true. But they're already here, in the tens of millions, in the form of illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, & native Americans...Just to get close to a 50/50% balance we would have to only admit STEM & other highly skilled/educated for years...

$15 an hour is below the poverty level right..?
My guess is we need more cheap labor



But I'm not an expert like you are
maybe we don't - but I sure see a lot of "Hiring Signs" at the bottom level

[BDKJMU]

I don't believe that at all. We need low skill workers as well. It should be a mix of skills/talents. But I couldn't say what the percentages should be off the top of my head.

I caught the evening news on the local station (Salisbury MD) last night. They had the owner of a crab processing operation in Crisfield saying that he wouldn’t be operating at 100% this year because he can’t get enough Americans to do the work and his migrant pool is drying up.

One reason more Americans won't do some of the low skilled jobs is because its too easy for them to sit at home & collect welfare & unemployment bennies. I wonder how many able bodied Americans in the Salisbury area there are that have dropped out of the workforce?

[BDKJMU]

That is true. But they're already here, in the tens of millions, in the form of illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, & native Americans...Just to get close to a 50/50% balance we would have to only admit STEM & other highly skilled/educated for years...

$15 an hour is below the poverty level right..?
My guess is we need more cheap labor



But I'm not an expert like you are
maybe we don't - but I sure see a lot of "Hiring Signs" at the bottom level

No. $15 an hour is well above the poverty level. $15 an hr = $31,200 a year on a 40 hr workweek. The federal poverty level:
For 1: $12,140, about $6 an hr
For 2: $16,460, about $8 an hr.
For 3: $20,780, about $10 an hr
etc, etc..
https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/lon ... tml#title1
Outside of HS or college age living at home with mom & dad, why would you work a job that pays $8, $10, even $15 an hour when you can get close to that for doing nothing?

[CAA Flagship]

I'll say this about unemployment payments: It is based on the amount you made while employed. If you bring in a boatload of people to work high paying jobs, you better keep them employed because when the economy tanks, it will cost the government more in unemployment benefits. And finding a job that is within reasonable range of the previous job will be difficult in a bad economy.

This is where the Obama Admin completely fucked up in it's slow reaction to the recession (yeah, I know it was by design in order to maintain votes for the freebies). A high wage earning software engineer isn't going to be able to fill the vacant accountant position. But the landscaper can be a construction helper.

[Ibanez]

$15 an hour is below the poverty level right..?
My guess is we need more cheap labor



But I'm not an expert like you are
maybe we don't - but I sure see a lot of "Hiring Signs" at the bottom level

No. $15 an hour is well above the poverty level. $15 an hr = $31,200 a year on a 40 hr workweek. The federal poverty level:
For 1: $12,140, about $6 an hr
For 2: $16,460, about $8 an hr.
For 3: $20,780, about $10 an hr
etc, etc..
https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/lon ... tml#title1
Outside of HS or college age living at home with mom & dad, why would you work a job that pays $8, $10, even $15 an hour when you can get close to that for doing nothing?

Since you brought up...how much are they earning "doing nothing"? Also, what are the requirements to maintain that money and when does it cease?

[∞∞∞]

I don't believe that at all. We need low skill workers as well. It should be a mix of skills/talents. But I couldn't say what the percentages should be off the top of my head.

I caught the evening news on the local station (Salisbury MD) last night. They had the owner of a crab processing operation in Crisfield saying that he wouldn’t be operating at 100% this year because he can’t get enough Americans to do the work and his migrant pool is drying up.

My father owns a construction company and he pays his employees well, quite above the local average. Even then, he says white Americans almost never apply and when he does hire them, they quickly quit. His best skilled, most loyal employees are essentially all Hispanic (immigrants or citizens).

[CID1990]

So .... is there anybody here advocating that they should be allowed in?

I'm fine with it. It's our lawful obligation to process asylum-seekers and allow them to make their case.

And instead of chasing them around in the desert, they're fully documented and legally here until their argument is heard. Regardless of the situation, a fully documented asylum-seeker is better than an illegal immigrant which we know nothing about.

If they don't show up, ICE should have full authority to seek them out.

Wrong, it is not. Or are they not already out of Central America? Go look up international conventions on refugees.

They are currently in a country from which they can seek asylum. If they cross over one developed country to get to another more developed country, then they are economic migrants, not refugees.

Are you aware of the absconder rate in the US for paroled illegal immigrants and asylum seekers?

It is why we have more than 11 million illegals in the country even after a complete reset in the 1980s.

Fortunately, Mexico appears to have heard the distant music


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

They should not be allowed in. If they are seeking asylum like they claim it should be in the neighboring country, i.e. Mexico.

Put yourself in an asylum-seeker's mindset. If you're trying to start a new life from scratch, where would you go? The country with rampant corruption, violence, and economic issues; or the country with a strong economy, a fair political system, and a history of welcoming immigrants?

Trump was right about Mexico?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

Do not let them cross, Mexico is helping them get here, they should be responsible.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

If you bring in a boatload of people to work high paying jobs, you better keep them employed because when the economy tanks, it will cost the government more in unemployment benefits.

Cid can correct me if I'm wrong - but, visas for high paying jobs like H1B are tied to your job. If you lose your job, you don't collect unemployment. And, you'd have to find another employer to hire you and reapply for H1B.

This is where the Obama Admin completely fucked up in it's slow reaction to the recession

Obama's slow reaction? I think you misspelled Bush.

We were 13 months into the recession when Obama was sworn in. It ended 4 months after he was sworn in.

[∞∞∞]

I'm fine with it. It's our lawful obligation to process asylum-seekers and allow them to make their case.

And instead of chasing them around in the desert, they're fully documented and legally here until their argument is heard. Regardless of the situation, a fully documented asylum-seeker is better than an illegal immigrant which we know nothing about.

If they don't show up, ICE should have full authority to seek them out.

Wrong, it is not. Or are they not already out of Central America? Go look up international conventions on refugees.

They are currently in a country from which they can seek asylum. If they cross over one developed country to get to another more developed country, then they are economic migrants, not refugees.

Are you aware of the absconder rate in the US for paroled illegal immigrants and asylum seekers?

It is why we have more than 11 million illegals in the country even after a complete reset in the 1980s.

Fortunately, Mexico appears to have heard the distant music


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why assume I'm talking about international conventions? The United States Refugee Act of 1980 is what I was referring to...and this is our own nation's definition of a refugee by law:

(A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in
the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such
person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and
is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that
country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.

That's pretty clear and dry...nothing about economic migrants and crossing from one country to the next.

[CID1990]

Wrong, it is not. Or are they not already out of Central America? Go look up international conventions on refugees.

They are currently in a country from which they can seek asylum. If they cross over one developed country to get to another more developed country, then they are economic migrants, not refugees.

Are you aware of the absconder rate in the US for paroled illegal immigrants and asylum seekers?

It is why we have more than 11 million illegals in the country even after a complete reset in the 1980s.

Fortunately, Mexico appears to have heard the distant music


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why assume I'm talking about international conventions? The United States Refugee Act of 1980 is what I was referring to...and this is our own nation's definition of a refugee by law:

(A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in
the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such
person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and
is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that
country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.

That's pretty clear and dry...nothing about economic migrants and crossing from one country to the next.

And, because they did not request asylum in the first safe haven they reached, their asylum claim will almost certainly be jeopardized in the US court.

the entire process you described in your first post is precisely what we have been doing for years with known results. And the conventional wisdom that "once you make it in, you're in" is why we have people like Donald Trump winning elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

Why assume I'm talking about international conventions? The United States Refugee Act of 1980 is what I was referring to...and this is our own nation's definition of a refugee by law:

(A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in
the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such
person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and
is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that
country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
political opinion.

That's pretty clear and dry...nothing about economic migrants and crossing from one country to the next.

And, because they did not request asylum in the first safe haven they reached, their asylum claim will almost certainly be jeopardized in the US court.

the entire process you described in your first post is precisely what we have been doing for years with known results. And the conventional wisdom that "once you make it in, you're in" is why we have people like Donald Trump winning elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I'm saying is that under the law, our own laws, we are obliged to give refugees a chance to make their case. I know it's been like this a while; I'm replying to the people in this thread who want to turn asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like immigrants.

I'm not saying "one you make it, you're in"; it hasn't been that way for decades. I guess you're here inside the border until the case goes through the proper channels, but you still have to prove why you shouldn't be deported.

[CID1990]

And, because they did not request asylum in the first safe haven they reached, their asylum claim will almost certainly be jeopardized in the US court.

the entire process you described in your first post is precisely what we have been doing for years with known results. And the conventional wisdom that "once you make it in, you're in" is why we have people like Donald Trump winning elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I'm saying is that under the law, our own laws, we are obliged to give refugees a chance to make their case. I know it's been like this a while; I'm replying to the people in this thread who want to turn asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like immigrants.

I'm not saying "one you make it, you're in"; it hasn't been that way for decades. I guess you're here inside the border until the case goes through the proper channels, but you still have to prove why you shouldn't be deported.

Here's how it works for people paroled into the country ... through your proper channels:

(and a large percentage if apprehensions are paroled in)

1. parole
2. work authorization card
3. court date set - almost always a year wait
4. dont go to hearing, abscond
5. deportation proceedings in absentia

---years pass----

6. illegal alien in hiding gets quickie marriage to USC or LPR
7. USC or LPR petitions for illegally present spouse
8. Alien goes back to country of origin for immigrant visa interview (the country they were seeking asylum from)
9. Alien is found 212(a)(9)(B)(i) or (ii) with five or ten year bar to reentry. Also 9(A) for previous deport
10. USCIS grants waiver of ineligibility, alien receives immigrant visa
11. alien immigrates

Here's how the process goes when they can't make entry in the first place:

1.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

Wouldn't the bombs I proposed be quicker and cheaper? I'm not talking fancy stuff. Just a few Mk-82's should do the trick.

[BDKJMU]

And, because they did not request asylum in the first safe haven they reached, their asylum claim will almost certainly be jeopardized in the US court.

the entire process you described in your first post is precisely what we have been doing for years with known results. And the conventional wisdom that "once you make it in, you're in" is why we have people like Donald Trump winning elections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I'm saying is that under the law, our own laws, we are obliged to give refugees a chance to make their case. I know it's been like this a while; I'm replying to the people in this thread who want to turn asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like immigrants.

I'm not saying "one you make it, you're in"; it hasn't been that way for decades. I guess you're here inside the border until the case goes through the proper channels, but you still have to prove why you shouldn't be deported.

No you are replying to the people in this thread who want to turn bogus asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like ILLEGAL immigrants and those who would like to exploit loopholes to gain easy, permanent entry into the country.

[kalm]

All I'm saying is that under the law, our own laws, we are obliged to give refugees a chance to make their case. I know it's been like this a while; I'm replying to the people in this thread who want to turn asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like immigrants.

I'm not saying "one you make it, you're in"; it hasn't been that way for decades. I guess you're here inside the border until the case goes through the proper channels, but you still have to prove why you shouldn't be deported.

No you are replying to the people in this thread who want to turn bogus asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like ILLEGAL immigrants and those who would like to exploit loopholes to gain easy, permanent entry into the country.

Yeah but nary a peep from you folks regarding those who employ them.

I don’t want illegals either and I’m not even opposed to building that stupid wall...whatever. But until the right also acknowledges illegal employers they are 100% full of shit on the issue.

[∞∞∞]

All I'm saying is that under the law, our own laws, we are obliged to give refugees a chance to make their case. I know it's been like this a while; I'm replying to the people in this thread who want to turn asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like immigrants.

I'm not saying "one you make it, you're in"; it hasn't been that way for decades. I guess you're here inside the border until the case goes through the proper channels, but you still have to prove why you shouldn't be deported.

Here's how it works for people paroled into the country ... through your proper channels:

(and a large percentage if apprehensions are paroled in)

1. parole
2. work authorization card
3. court date set - almost always a year wait
4. dont go to hearing, abscond
5. deportation proceedings in absentia

---years pass----

6. illegal alien in hiding gets quickie marriage to USC or LPR
7. USC or LPR petitions for illegally present spouse
8. Alien goes back to country of origin for immigrant visa interview (the country they were seeking asylum from)
9. Alien is found 212(a)(9)(B)(i) or (ii) with five or ten year bar to reentry. Also 9(A) for previous deport
10. USCIS grants waiver of ineligibility, alien receives immigrant visa
11. alien immigrates

Here's how the process goes when they can't make entry in the first place:

1.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's the percentage of refugees that declare asylum at the border which don't go to their hearings? The last time I read, it was pretty low...something like 5%...but I can't find the statistic. And even then, only 50% or so get their asylum status approved.

The illegal immigrants that get caught and claim asylum afterwards have a much worst chance at showing up to court hearings and an even worst chance of getting permission to stay. But again, those are the people that skirted the entire process, sneaked in, and claimed asylum after-the-fact. These are usually the economic migrants that claim asylum as a last-ditch effort to stay when caught, although sometimes they might have a legitimate reason to claim it.

[∞∞∞]

All I'm saying is that under the law, our own laws, we are obliged to give refugees a chance to make their case. I know it's been like this a while; I'm replying to the people in this thread who want to turn asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like immigrants.

I'm not saying "one you make it, you're in"; it hasn't been that way for decades. I guess you're here inside the border until the case goes through the proper channels, but you still have to prove why you shouldn't be deported.

No you are replying to the people in this thread who want to turn bogus asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like ILLEGAL immigrants and those who would like to exploit loopholes to gain easy, permanent entry into the country.

A refugee, whether they apply at the border or otherwise, is a LEGAL alien until they're ordered to leave. You can't say they're bogus until they make their case. Refugees are also the smallest percentage of immigrants in the United States.

An illegal immigrant has nothing to do with this thread. Those are the people that gained entry illegally, skipped their hearings, overstayed their visas, or have gone into hiding after being ordered to leave.

[JohnStOnge]

Yes, Hispanic immigrants assimilate faster now than any group in the history of the country!

Have they? Is that anecdotal or do you have factual information to base that on?

I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm interested in your sources.

If he gives you the details, backs up what he says, etc., you might accuse him of making his post too long and detailed.

[css75]

Wouldn't the bombs I proposed be quicker and cheaper? I'm not talking fancy stuff. Just a few Mk-82's should do the trick.

Another very good remedy would be to load up the Rio Grande with alligators. They do a very Good job of security at the Kennedy Space Center.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

No you are replying to the people in this thread who want to turn bogus asylum-seekers away at the border simply because they don't like ILLEGAL immigrants and those who would like to exploit loopholes to gain easy, permanent entry into the country.

A refugee, whether they apply at the border or otherwise, is a LEGAL alien until they're ordered to leave. You can't say they're bogus until they make their case. Refugees are also the smallest percentage of immigrants in the United States.

An illegal immigrant has nothing to do with this thread. Those are the people that gained entry illegally, skipped their hearings, overstayed their visas, or have gone into hiding after being ordered to leave.

You're about as incorrect about the INA as JSO is about the laws governing classified materials

Any alien inside the US without a visa or parole is by definition unlawfully present -

And you need to go back and read carefully the same refugee definition you posted earlier - they define what a refugee is, but what you left out it where they have to be in order to make this claim to US immigration officials - they have to be IN the US. It cannot be done outside of the US except in recognized refugee centers.

They are "intending immigrants" and therefore subject to section 214(b) of the INA. This is why if every single one of those caravan folks showed up at a US Consulate in Honduras or Guatemala or Mexico or anywhere else in the world... and applied for a visa and were asked "what is the purpose of your travel to the US?" and they answered "to seek asylum", they would be denied under 214(b). If they said "to seek refugee status" they would also be denied under the same code.

Therefore, there is no mechanism outside of already having refugee status under the UNHCR or other body for them to be "IN" the United States without making unlawful entry. Which means they cannot be "allowed" in at the border by an immigration official- they must sneak in or force their way in.

So let me ask the question again - now that we have an elementary understanding of the laws that govern entry to the US-

Does anyone here believe that we should allow this caravan into the US?

Or put another way, does anyone here believe that we should open our borders to anyone who wants to claim refugee status or seek asylum?

[CID1990]

Here's how it works for people paroled into the country ... through your proper channels:

(and a large percentage if apprehensions are paroled in)

1. parole
2. work authorization card
3. court date set - almost always a year wait
4. dont go to hearing, abscond
5. deportation proceedings in absentia

---years pass----

6. illegal alien in hiding gets quickie marriage to USC or LPR
7. USC or LPR petitions for illegally present spouse
8. Alien goes back to country of origin for immigrant visa interview (the country they were seeking asylum from)
9. Alien is found 212(a)(9)(B)(i) or (ii) with five or ten year bar to reentry. Also 9(A) for previous deport
10. USCIS grants waiver of ineligibility, alien receives immigrant visa
11. alien immigrates

Here's how the process goes when they can't make entry in the first place:

1.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's the percentage of refugees that declare asylum at the border which don't go to their hearings? The last time I read, it was pretty low...something like 5%...but I can't find the statistic. And even then, only 50% or so get their asylum status approved.

The illegal immigrants that get caught and claim asylum afterwards have a much worst chance at showing up to court hearings and an even worst chance of getting permission to stay. But again, those are the people that skirted the entire process, sneaked in, and claimed asylum after-the-fact. These are usually the economic migrants that claim asylum as a last-ditch effort to stay when caught, although sometimes they might have a legitimate reason to claim it.

Think again- carefully about this question you asked

Or, ask yourself - why would an asylum seeker NOT go to their asylum hearing? The percentage of absconders in the group of people you described is very low.

You're confusing a lot of things here that I don't feel like unpacking right now.

[∞∞∞]

What's the percentage of refugees that declare asylum at the border which don't go to their hearings? The last time I read, it was pretty low...something like 5%...but I can't find the statistic. And even then, only 50% or so get their asylum status approved.

The illegal immigrants that get caught and claim asylum afterwards have a much worst chance at showing up to court hearings and an even worst chance of getting permission to stay. But again, those are the people that skirted the entire process, sneaked in, and claimed asylum after-the-fact. These are usually the economic migrants that claim asylum as a last-ditch effort to stay when caught, although sometimes they might have a legitimate reason to claim it.

Think again- carefully about this question you asked

Or, ask yourself - why would an asylum seeker NOT go to their asylum hearing? The percentage of absconders in the group of people you described is very low.

You're confusing a lot of things here that I don't feel like unpacking right now.

Please unpack them on me.

To your post, we can't just deny asylum-seekers at the border:

The United States has long adhered to international laws and conventions allowing people to seek asylum on grounds that they are being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, political beliefs or other factors. If a Border Patrol agent encounters a U.S.-bound migrant without ­legal papers and the person “expresses fear of being returned to their home country, our officers are required to process them for an interview with an asylum officer,” said Friel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/th ... 19e50a78d4

This isn't nothing new and frankly not very complex. The show up at the border, declare asylum, and must be processed (and all our centers are IN the United States). Frankly, this argument that "they're technically illegal if they cross our border and declare asylum and you can't be illegal to declare asylum" would get shredded by an immigration lawyer.