100% this is exactly Canadas MO |
If we make a 3rd country agreement we will need the wall. Otherwise people will try to skirt it. |
(former D, now Ind) - Your thinking is illogical. If the Ds in the past would have supported such a measure - and yes, Clinton was tough on immigration and crime, incarcerating many people for minor offenses - why would one president change their minds on an issue? I am a first-gen. My parents fully supported tough immigration laws b/c they entered legally, learned the language, and worked their ass*s off to provide a stable home for our family. They would not have voted for Trump, but they understood that some issues transcended party lines. As an Ind, I'm surprised by your line of thinking. But you seem to prefer black and white thinking. |
- Mexico already offered them asylum. They refused and rushed the US border - watch the footage. - Do you really think that those whose asylum claim was rejected will turn around and walk back to their country of origin? Really? No, they will go look for a hole in the fence and get in the US. Watch the footage. - There are not enough facilities to keep them in. Thousands were released in Texas just <> a month ago. Watch the footage. You know what your problem is? You are assuming that you deal with law abiding people who respect the law of this country. They don't. They don't have any respect for the US law or for citizens of this country who have to pay for them. They don't respect YOU. Agree with your last sentence. We need to keep them out in the first place. |
No, it doesn't. There has to be a documented knowledge of a military conflict or political/sex minority/religion minority oppression BEFORE asylum seekers are let in. That's how foreign countries' citizens get asylum quotas. Otherwise the whole world will be here claiming asylum and living in the US until their case is processed. |
If we had a safe third country with Mexico, it wouldnt matter if they turned down asylum in Mexico. Just the fact that they touched Mexican soil first would be all that is needed to send them back to Mexico or deport them home. We do have enough space to hold them if build more facilities and utilize the ones we already have. This problem needs more than one solution. They will crawl under or jump over the fence. We also need to be able to send them back quickly when they do that. Fine/Jail employers who knowingly hire them. Track people who come here on visas to ensure they leave. Expand facial recognition at airports and land crossings so that we know who is coming in and that they left. All these things need to happen, not just one thing |
Not true. All they need to do is show up at the border and say the magic words (coached by their coyote) in the initial interview. After that we have to let them in until their case is processed but of course they vanish before that happens. This is why we need judges at the border conducting this initial interview or at least upping the standards for how easy it is to get through it. something like 90% ultimately fail to get asylum so all of the time spent on law enforcement, court, etc. is wasted tax payer dollars when we couldve cut this off at the pass |
Even if so, why should we except hundreds of thousands of economic dead weight migrants who don't even speak that language that they need to get employed in the US? |
Correction to the posters above. The "Mexico offered them asylum but they refused" is not true. There were many journalists who looked into this, along with many lawyers who were trying to advocate on behalf of the migrants who found that the narrative and reality were worlds apart. The migrants were getting stonewalled by Mexican officials and could not get anywhere with the asylum process. |
Your great grandparents quite likely came to America as economic migrants unable to speak the language. |
You missed. I am the first generation of my family living abroad. I came here legally loaded with high potential - high education, clean criminal record, no socially dangerous diseases. An this is how it suppose to be. And if my grandparents would be blessed to immigrate to this country they would not have a dime of freebies that ''refugees'' get plenty of these days. They would have survives on their own the best they could - just like millions of others who immigrated back in a day. You missed again. |
Perhaps that was because they dont meet the definition of asylum. Just like they dont here. These are economic migrants... and surprise! Mexico doesnt want them dragging down their pay rates either. Imagine that. |
Not surprised. Economic migrants are not eligible for asylum. You are right. Liberal narrative of letting them all in and reality are worlds apart. |
Wow, you are so full of bogus talking points. Illegal immigrants are ineligible for federal "freebies" and as far as diseases we have a far bigger problem with nutty US citizen antivaxxers than we do with migrants. |
LMAO! When proven wrong you try to just change your own narrative? "They were offered asylum by Mexico but turned their noses up at it" - turns out to be false "Well they weren't eligible for asylum in Mexico because they are economic migrants" - suddenly your own narrative has changed, but also not entirely true as many are fleeing serious criminal violence... And you want to talk about liberal narrative? Too funny. |