Solving Illegal Immigration

Bring 'em. It's a stupid troll stunt, but that's fine. Though honestly, I think Trump probably wouldn't send them to Texas because of Abbott and SB4. But the sanctuary cities are probably also the ones best equipped with existing communities, nonprofits, services, etc. Having a couple geographically-specific landing sites will give the NGOs some policy clarity on where to establish their operations.

 

If he is smart, he will only send them to sanctuary cities in states that he knows are not likely to vote for him in 2020.

 

I think he's being rhetorically astute. Californians aren't going to care if they get more, less, or equal their fair share of asylum-seekers. But conservatives may see it as a great betrayal if he not only releases asylum-seekers on their own recognizance but also drops them in their own towns. He's casting this as a sticking-it-to-the-sanctuary-cities thing, which I'm sure plays well anyway. But, it also tells conservatives he's going to steer the refugees away from them. So, maybe conservatives won't feel as disappointed in Trump. They can probably still be happy if he sends them to Austin or something. Conservatives are already avoiding the city anyway.

 

Agree, big time. It is a stunt, and everyone but trump's mindless supporters know it. Heck, his own immigration people have already concluded that transporting immigrants like that isn't safe. Plus, immigrants will understandably relocate when (1) jobs exist and more likely (where relatives or friends are). So any vocalized "dumping them" in "sanctuary cities" program announced by trump as a political stunt to "own the libs" will be a major fail.

Meanwhile, trump is avoiding real solutions to the problem (more border patrol, more judges,more technology, more enforcement of hiring laws), simply to get his vanity wall built (which btw, doesn't address much of the immigration problem).

 

How is that going to solve anything. Most people are coming here for jobs and a better life. I am not going to blame them for it. The biggest thing that thing that is going to determine if you get deported or not is the judge. With Trump appointing all the judges they are going to all get sent back. Currently 75% are getting denied.

 

Sorry, I neglected to include "more money and cooperation with countries to help reduce the numbers of people needing/wanting to come to the U.S.".



5 former US military chiefs condemn Trump’s decision to cut Central American aid
Trump usually likes listening to tough military people. He probably won’t listen to these ones, though.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/8/18300809/trump-immigration-el-salvador-guatemala-honduras-military

THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO REDUCE IMMIGRATION, BUT CUTTING FOREIGN AID MAY MAKE IT WORSE
https://today.duke.edu/2019/04/pres...gration-cutting-foreign-aid-may-make-it-worse

 

It won't solve the problems that Northern Triangle refugees have. Most will be denied when they are ultimately adjudicated and be deported back into the violence they were fleeing. But, it does solve ICE's asylum application backlog problem, and Trump's too many asylum seekers knocking around free inside the United States problem.

 

It's been past time to fix the system .
1) Get rid of the free.
2) Get more judges to look at asylum cases
3) Go after those that have over stayed there Visas.
4) Put a real tax on money that is sent out of the counrty
These are just some starting points

 

So instead of beefing up or even enforcing a system to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants, trump instead continues to find ways to punish the undocumented immigrants here in the country...

 

well this is inconvenient

 

why are we still calling these illegal aliens "asylum seekers"?? Under what ground? Gangs and domestic violence?

 

On the grounds that they literally are applying for asylum???

 

Creating another "crisis" to deflect from political problems or going bonkers?

 

Because Asylum seekers aren't illegal?

 

, they're illegal aliens disguising as asylum seekers. But then again, you'd never know that or see them that way

 

I wouldn't because I haven't heard their cases and I doubt you have heard the details of a single case yourself.

Yet, somehow you know?

I believe that most don't qualify for asylum because that is usually the case.

If a qualified judge decided they didn't meet the requirements, I would be fine not granting asylum.

But until that time it isn't useful to call people following the legal process illegal.

Not everyone has your ability to know zero details about a single case but still know for a fact that they are all cheats.

 

What happened if 100 millions Chinese apply for asylum? Do you think they like working in a factory screwing in one screw for 12 hours and live under a communist party? Or only Hispanic can be consider asylum seeker?

 

Oh yeah they're definitely asylum seekers alright.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/migrant-caravan-apos-beast-apos-191604267.html

Every one of them that got interviewed revealed they left their country because of gang violence and for economic reason. They're coming by the thousands and you want to hear their "cases" and let them invade the border.

 

If someone doesn't qualify, I don't have a problem sending them back. That doesn't make them illegal to apply.