I thought not allowing them to stay in the United States would do it. Perhaps make the precise requirements more publicized, along with how few asylum seekers are actually granted asylum?
The caravan has been offered safe haven in Mexico and very few are taking it. What do they need asylum from when they are being offered jobs, healthcare, schooling, etc... ? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ugee-plan-us-border-immigration-a8604411.html I would say let none of these people in who have rejected Mexico's offer. They can't possibly need asylum. As far as reducing the incentive to claim asylum; there is no need to worry about it.
Birtherism Wanting the Central Park Five executed despite their exoneration Systematically denying black people apartments to rent Promoting nationalism Wanting only guys with yarmulkes to handle his money Pocahontas Asking a black reporter to set up a meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus Rapists and murderers Not denouncing support from David Duke Both sides
Looks like a bunch of exagerations and assumptions. Also nationalism isn't racist fyi. Ethnonationalism is a seperate thing. Also he assumed the natives Europeans encountered were the original people. What about all the tribal wars that saw territories change? No group was likely some innocent group that got their first anyway. The noble savage myth is a common falsity used to bash America.
Denying apartments to minorities isn't an exaggeration or assumption. Even if Trump isn't one, all of the things listed were things and acts that a racist would do, so Trump behaves like one. Whether he is or isn't, doesn't matter. What matters is that he behaves like one.
I don’t think that would do it, if you’re allowing them entry and also not keeping them in custody while their asylum request is being processed.
These folks probably had no idea what the rules were when they embarked on their trip. They were fed some BS by whoever is funding this adventure.
But we have seen statistics that most return for their hearings. If they are leaving not knowing the rules and believe they will get in, publicizing the reals might help them rethink their situation.
Even if those numbers are true, there's no reason to think they wouldn't change as many more seek to exploit the loophole in the law that would allow anyone to merely claim asylum and be automatically immediately allowed in the country.
I don't oppose changing the rules in some humanitarian way. However, you don't treat people differently based on legislation which hasn't even been proposed yet.
I don't think there's a problem with putting a halt to a non essential system when it is discovered to be broken and leaving it shut down until a fix can be legislated. If anything it would encourage those who would write that legislation to not drag their feet with a fix. If you have a pipe that burst in your house, you shut the water off until you fix it. The loophole where you allow just anyone into the country that claims to be seeking asylum is similar IMO. No one wants to harm legitimate asylum seekers, but when you are having thousands upon thousands of people who aren't legitimate asylum seekers attempting to exploit that loophole you have to do something about it. I figured I'd add a chart to show how the problem is increasing
Even if I agreed to the temporary halt (which I don't) there is no way it should be implemented immediately. It should be said that as of 'January 15th 2019 (or whatever future date) we are putting a temporary halt to Asylum in the United States. I don't agree with that because you don't screw over the tens of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers who are at danger if they must go back to their homes.
Almost none of those in the caravan are legitimate asylum seekers. "My country is poor and corrupt" is not a legitimate basis for asylum. The caravan is full of economic migrants attempting to exploit the system, I'm sure in the "tens of thousands" there are some legitimate asylum seekers, but I'd bet they are the extreme minority.
I was referring to the tens of thousands on the graph that YOU provided. You haven't reviewed the cases of all or most likely any of those in the caravan. You aren't qualified to say if they are or aren't legitimate asylum seekers. If if they aren't then they won't get asylum.
Oh, I wasn't talking about not continuing to process the claims that have already come in, I was talking about halting new claims until a fix could be found. Those hundreds of thousands are already in the country and waiting for hearings and a decision. Halting new applications would also allow them to catch up and get through the backlog which is now well over 300k and increasing by the day.
Finally a legit question. Usually objections revolve around what people think other people should do, like that matters. We have a system in which people can apply for asylum. I expect most applicants will be denied and deported and I'm fine with that because they had their due process. As far as abuse of the asylum system hurting Americans, I think the review process is enough to protect us, so it's not something to worry about in that regard. It would make sense to reduce incentives to apply for people who have no shot just to keep the burden on the system down. I think FB's suggestion is good, be more clear and prominent about what you'll need to show to prove your case and what are your chances for success. The money you spend on marketing probably gets saved in administration. But I don't think that's Trump's aim. He doesn't want to reduce the burden of bad claims. He wants to reduce the number of valid claims. He does as much as he can to dissuade this entire caravan and all other applicants -- with good claims and bad -- to go back home and not even apply. That undermines the will we'd previously expressed in creating an asylum process to rescue the oppressed. If we decide we're no longer protectors of the oppressed, that's fine, we can do that, but we should do it through the legislative process which ensures that there is some sufficient consensus to change our ways. That's not really a loophole. A loophole is a chink in the process that comes about because the policymakers never thought about it one way or the other. When we made the asylum process, they thought explicitly about where applicants would stay. There are different rules for if you're inside the country applying, or applying from abroad. Anyway, maybe its bad policy to let them wait inside the country, but it's not a loophole, it's a feature.
What I meant by a loophole was that if you are an economic migrant for example, if you go to a border crossing, they won't let you in without going through the long process of migration to the US. If you instead just tell them you are an asylum seeker, you immediately gain access to the country even if there is absolutely no chance that your asylum claim is legitimate or would stand up to scrutiny. That's why I was calling it a "loophole" even though, yes, it's a feature of the system. When people weren't using the features of the asylum system as a back door for non legitimate asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who get caught on their way into the country to gain entry to the country rather than being deported, it worked perfectly fine but now that they are using it that way, it desperately needs to be changed.
i see a lot of plausible deniability here... not really solid proof. common... just because you think he behaves like one.. please..
