I’m not defending Trump in saying this, but I’d like to point out that I find it fascinating that some people will argue systemic racism is a problem because white judges are biased against minorities, but would gladly call out Trump for echoing the same concept.
Again though, an accusation like that needs evidence of racial bias, which Trump didn’t have.
…indeed.
That is absolutely no where near the same concept.
I wish they were even pretending any more that this wasn’t the real reason.
And yet, something like 90 percent of those making an asylum claim show up for court. There was one monitoring program that had 99% of its participants show up to court dates for asylum hearings. And the Trump Administration ended it.
So I ask you, what is the opposite of a loophole?
I would not presume hate where mere indifference would suffice.
It was not Trump personally deciding to drop these people at the bus station in Texas, it was local immigration officers.
Case loads along the border have gone up substantially, particularly family groups being detained. This Washington Post report notes:
And there is coaching according to the same WaPo report:
I’m empathetic to the plight of the poor in Latin America. Mrs Iggy comes from such a background. But the asylum and refugee process is not intended to provide relief to economic migrants. Abusing that system may make it harder for persons with genuine Credible Fear claims to be taken seriously.
From the same source - Syracuse University keeps a ton of immigration stats. I don’t know that I’d call 65% an “overwhelming majority,” though.
If it has to do with Trump, guns, or immigration, you guys just cannot be logical like you are with most other topics. Forget that this is immigration; say it is admission to a college.
If it was difficult to get into a particular college the direct way, but I pointed out that if you really wanted in all you had to do was tell a particular story and you would get in even if the story wasn’t true, you would call that a loophole would you not?
Of course you would. Everyone would. Because that’s what it is.
Even if the amnesty program is used legitimately by 90%, you have allowed 10% to enter the country illegally and disappear. That is a loophole.
Yet if we listened to Trump, 100% are entering the country and disappearing.
And let’s get real: this whole issue isn’t about improving the system for seeking asylum. It’s about making a scapegoat of people who look differently than the average Republican voter, and an awful lot of people looooove to find scapegoats. That much has been shown throughout history.
Not to mention that your version of “getting into college” involves 90% of those temporarily admitted to such college being kicked out after a year or so. Again, probably pretty familiar ground for the typical Trump voter.
From **Iggy’s **link above: (#26)
Not necessarily germane to the subject, but then again maybe so.
I apologize for my apparent “dump and run” of this thread. Y’all are just too smart; by the time I think of a reply to one post, someone has already said it better, and someone else has given me more to chew on. I very much appreciate the information and thoughtful arguments.
I should note that there may be a quite pragmatic reason for “dumping”- lack of detention space.
To expand on this post:
Note the link to Sessions and Trump greatly restricting who they will accept. Note that LGBTQ fobia and anti-women sentiment by the administration lead to a huge increase in denials.
Also note that the compliance rate and court attendance is excellent for applicants, showing that the concentration camps were unnecessary too. Dumping them is mostly to avoid giving these individuals access to due process in order to appease xenophobia within a particular voting block and is not about safety, the rule of law or justice.
There’s a big difference between “someone whose fear isn’t one included in the US’s specific laundry list” and “someone whose only reason to move is economic”. I’m not even getting into why it’s so completely absurd to be against economic migration.
That specific laundry list of Credible Fear categories comes from UN treaties - the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees - which were enacted post-WWII. The entire asylum process laid out in those treaties was a response to the Holocaust. At that time Domestic Violence was not taken as seriously and threats from drug trafficking gangs were not envisioned.
One factor in the whole idea of asylum/refugee status is that the claimant has credible fear to remain anywhere in his/her home country. For example, a Mexican person claiming fear of persecution from unchecked activities of drug gangs in a Sinaloa cartel controlled area might fail a credible fear interview if the immigration officer believes that the claimant would not be subject to persecution if he/she moved elsewhere within Mexico.
At least Mexico is a relatively large country. Imagine a similar claimant who fears threats from MS-13 gang members in El Salvador. Can they really move far enough away within El Salvador to feel unthreatened?
But as it stands, current guidance from the Trump administration is that a foreign country’s inability to effectively police drug violence is not grounds for asylum since the threat to the claimant is not from the government of that country. :dubious:
So terrorism as a legitimate asylum category simply does not exist.
Score: drug cartels 50-some-billion, USA zero
Score: Fascist dictators with thug gangs another large number, USA zero
Score: Religious zealots probably an ever larger number, USA zero
These people winning the game know what they are doing. Us, meh.
Get the drugs, politics and religious bullshyt sorted and we are on easy street! 