What's a Dem President going to do about the border problem?

The over crowding and understaffed centers is beyond ridiculous.

It leaves me wondering, how is a Dem president going to handle it any differently than Trump? (Aside from not separating families?)

Asylum seekers don’t actually need to be detained. And undocumented entry need not be more than a civil infraction. -What I’m saying is there are other alternatives for the majority of non-visa entrants that don’t endanger peace and security and don’t mistreat refugees and separate families. We’re capable of sorting out criminals using existing law enforcement practices and agents. The question is whether we’re willing to accept that any humane system will also fail to weed out all possible bad actors.

And, as far as “bad actors” go, I’d take a quote from the Republican playbook and say “let’s take care of our own bad actors before we go worrying about those immigrant bad actors. Americans first!”

A Dem could go back to catch and release and hope the press doesn’t report that between a quarter and a third of immigrants don’t show up for their hearings. Whether that counts as doing something is another issue.

Regards,
Shodan

Thank you for that link to the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration “think tank” whose record for factual reporting is right up there with Rush Limbaugh’s and Sean Hannity’s.

I have no trouble believing the statistic. What would make it meaningful, though, would be a comparison to the proportion of legal residents who fail to show up for their hearings. I wasn’t able to find any statistics, but court TV and life experience leads me to believe it’s also reasonably high. If the percentages of no-shows are at all similar, that would suggest the problem is with people in general, or the court system. If the rates are significantly higher for immigrants, that would suggest that it’s a specifc problem for migrants. Just saying X% don’t show for their hearings isn’t enough without context.

I know I heard that under Obama, over 90% of immigrants showed up for their court dates. 93% or 95%?

I love the Dope. Actual, factual cites - dismissed out of hand. “I heard” passes unchallenged.

:smiley:

Regards,
Shodan

My understaning is that a lot of the problems with immigrants not showing up to their hearings, is that the legal system is very complicated, and without access to legal counsel, or fluency with English many of these people are confused about when or where to show up.

Further lets just go ahead and take the high end at face value and assume that1/3 fail to show up. Is it really worth holding 300 people for months/years in deplorable conditions in which they have to drink from a toilet, in order to prevent 100 of them hiding out in America and committing the horrible crime of cleaning hotel rooms?

I am going to take a wild guess that people who think there’s a significant chance that showing up for their court dates might result in their being authorized to stay in the country legally are a whole lot more likely to show up than those who think that showing up for their court dates stands little or no chance of getting any result other than their getting handcuffed and tossed out of the country, quite possibly while their children are shipped off in a different direction with no attempt made to keep track of whose children went where. So the percentage who do show up is likely to vary depending on what else is going on in the immigration system.

And I would at least hope that a Democratic POTUS would encourage the system to allow legitimate asylum claims, as is required by law; and would also allow enough legal immigration for otherwise law-abiding people who want to work and/or join their families here to reduce the current backlog to the point at which people would think there was some sense in going through the proper legal process. Funding would also be needed to hire sufficient people to get immigrants through the process in a reasonable length of time, including checks to weed out those who pose an unreasonable risk; but seems to me that the money could come from money saved by not trying to build additional walls and not having to defend lawsuits about such things as trying to build additional walls.

It did not pass unchallenged.

The problem that we’re talking about a three-legged stool here. The first leg: Border security, anything from a trumpian wall to a “smart fence” to more border agents etc. The second leg: Dealing with the folks that are already here could manifest itself in anything from blanket amnesty to draconian deportation or anything in between. But the third leg, sanctions on the employers is the one that’s been neglected. trump isn’t going to ever do a damn thing about the folks that hire illegal worker because he’s ONE OF THEM. Seriously, let folks start seeing a few heads of big agribusiness doing perp walks and I’ll believe you’re trying to solve the problem rather than just demagoguing it.

Also maybe, just maybe, we ought to be considering if any of our policies toward these “Mexican countries” are contributing to why folks would rather not be there.

This cite says that 89% attend their final court date:

Higher if there is a family and children involved, and they have legal representation:

The difference in the figures may be because there may be many court dates involved, and immigrants without legal and translation help may miss some of them. Here’s where I’m making up figures that could explain the difference – say there are 10 court dates and the average immigrant misses all but one, the one where they get their final immigration status; some immigrants miss them all. Then, you have a situation where they miss 90% of their court dates and yet attend 90% of their important ones. It’s all about how the stats are spun. Humanrightsfirst.org will spin it differently than your cite, of course.

The humanrightsfirst.org page has links to other cites, which I haven’t reviewed.

Given that many of them have endorsed decriminalizing illegal immigration, how is the answer to the OP’s question not “nothing?” They’re going to simply let the 750 million or so people worldwide who say they want to move to the USA, do so.

This is silly.

I don’t know… Given that Obama built the child cages, and there were detention centers and all the rest when he was president of a ‘scandal free’ administration, why do the Democrats have to do anything?

The second a Democrat is elected, the border will stop being a ‘crisis’, the media will stop reporting on the detention centers, and the Nobel people will start polishing up another prize.

Not really talking about the same thing, but nice try.

Regards,
Shodan

There’s only one way to find out.

I would hope that Democratic presidents would treat illegal immigration at an appropriate level. Illegal immigration is the equivalent of getting a traffic violation like a speeding ticket. There’s no need to treat it like terrorism.

No legitimate need anyway. I guess the Republicans need to do this in order to keep their base afraid.

I’d also like to see the Democrats fight illegal immigration by opening up some means of legal immigration. Forbidding legal immigration is what’s driving illegal immigration.

And finally, I would want the Democrats to make sure that anyone who’s being held in custody by the government for any reason is being treated humanely and has the legal protection that everyone in this country is entitled to.

Indeed. And Trump never thanked him once. What a heel!