Will you maintain this stance if people are arrested next election for breaking the “no giving water to voters in line” law in Georgia? We most certainly don’t have to be against something just because it’s illegal.
A country is also not comparable to a house, or are you fine with people entering your home through the VISA waiver program?
That difference can only be told by investigating each case. It’s not anything that can be seen at a glance, or confirmed in a five minute discussion.
Didn’t you read your own link?
President Giammattei defended his government’s own record of fighting corruption and said the fight against drug trafficking should be an key part of tackling the issue.
He announced a new processing centre for migrants who had been sent back from the US and Mexico and said that the focus for both countries should be on creating prosperity.
100% agreed.
A president saying “I’m fighting corruption” or “prosperity is good” is not really news, whatever thruth there might be on those words.
What do you do with the person in the border after the US says “go back”. Who sends them back to Guatemala from the Mexican side of the border? US? Mexico? Guatemala? Who pays for the buses/planes/food?
That’s why the Vice President is trying to keep them from going in the first place. Much more humane and efficient.
To again be clear–some asylum seekers do commit the misdemeanor crime of “illegally crossing the border”, and then surrender to border patrol and assert an asylum claim. This does not make them “illegal immigrants”, it makes them asylum seekers who committed a border crossing infraction. It is the job of the immigration courts to determine their legal status. The default right wing talking point is anyone who doesn’t go through the traditional immigration lottery and / or various other standard visas, is illegal. That is not a correct painting of reality. Asylum seekers are specifically seeking a legally protected status, as per U.S. law.
I can’t see how that is going to work any differently than before.
Perhaps it won’t. But trying to improve the conditions in the countries people are leaving might reduce the number of people leaving. I don’t recall the prior administration offering to help solve that problem. (maybe I missed it)
Trump cut US aid to the region.
And then it was reinstated, regardless that corruption and human rights abuses were still rampant. That they did mostly band-aid efforts to prevent emigration from their countries was the most important thing to Trump.
Definitely, a better Guatemala means fewer migrants, but, you can concede, it’s a mid- to long-term solution.
Why are we talking about Trump’s terrible immigration policy? Can we focus on Harris?
Trump was a terrible president,
Harris and Biden are trying to reduce the number of people coming to the border, improve conditions in their native countries, and treat people at the border more humanely. I’m sure they would consider other ideas if you have them.
I don’t see the need for the snark.
“Improve conditions in their countries” is something that is positive, but even if actually carried out, only really makes a difference five or six years down the road in reducing the number of migrants. What do you do with the migrants you won’t take in?
“Don’t come” is good, but the US has been saying that for decades.
Sorry if it seemed snarky. You started a thread criticizing Harris, but I don’t know what it is about her positions you don’t like or what you think she should be doing instead.
That is the background, as it should be noticed already, the position that is hard against the ones that do not deserve asylum has been a constant one, so the answer to the OP is that, Kamala Harris is not far from what she talked about the issue before. And, Biden does agree mostly with her.
Still, however terible Trumps was, because he was, I made this thread to focus on Harris’s position and the short-term consequences of such a position, such as people on the Mexican side of the border who have been rejected entry into the US. Many will try again, some will set up camp and be a financial and social burden on Mexico.
Trump sucks, verily.
So it has always been the policy of upper levels of Democratic leadership to enforce border controls. Obama did it, Biden is doing it, Harris is Biden’s VP and is going to back his play. There are small elements of the Democratic party that advocate for open borders, but it has never been official party policy and certainly has never been executed by any Democratic President–Obama was frequently labelled a “mass deporter” by immigration activists.
“Don’t come” is important messaging because most of these immigrants will ultimately fail in their asylum claims and be deported. During that time they may be subject to detention and other unpleasant things, not to mention the risks of traveling here to begin with. While it has been said for years, it is good to keep saying it. There is a widely held perception, from pundits and even people inside the administration, that migrants who had dialed back their likelihood of traveling here under Trump assumed Biden was just going to let them all in. Lots of these migrant communities are as full of “fake news” and bad information as a typical State GOP meeting. Some of the messaging is simply trying to counteract that.
“What do you do” with the ones who come here anyway isn’t exactly a grand mystery. You follow the law, that is the job of the Chief Executive. That means you process them, get them on a list for an immigration hearing, and when (most of the time) they lose their bid for asylum you deport them. The ones who win their bid for asylum get to stay under that status. The process isn’t complicated at all.
The execution is complicated because there’s so many of them and it’s logistically hard to manage.
And still… the OP was answered already. What is left is the origin of the spin, Just a quick search showed to me that outfits like FAUX news are employing similar or the same misleading spin to what Harris and other Democrats did before, in an effort to keep the FOX viewers or readers upset and still under their control.