I don’t disagree with this. Unfortunately, reform to the asylum process would require an act of congress. Such a thing seems basically impossible - the GOP leadership in the House is lucky to be able to keep the government open.
Yes, as I indicated in the sentence following the one you quoted. Democrats would love to reform the system but the GOP will only go along if it includes draconian modifications to “punish” immigrants. And they are perfectly fine with the system being broken because it plays well for them politically - especially when they can flaunt their inhumanity by shipping human beings across the country to “make them someone else’s problem”.
I agre “build the wall” is ridiculous, but what do you understand to be the meaningful responses proposed by the Dems? (I suppose they might be evident in some Senate proposals/actions.). I think the Dems desire for union support limits their supporting any right to work for immigrants/asylum seekers.
I think the current system is so unworkable, such that the mere mention of the words, “seeking asylum” by someone with one toe on US soil conveys some special status on the individual.
God help me, but I actually understand part of the political calculus that the red states are using.
That’s part of the point by the red state governors (esp. Greg Abbott)- the blue states are very opinionated about how the border should be handled, how refugees should be handled, etc… but at a remove of several hundreds or thousands of miles. By shipping refugees to them and dropping them on these states and cities unannounced and unsupported, they’re essentially giving those states a bit of how it is to have a bunch of uninvited, unannounced, and basically destitute people show up and be a burden on your law enforcement, social services, and everything else that’s impacted when a whole lot of non-citizens show up from elsewhere with absolutely nothing but hope, and they’re expected to take care of them.
Of course, the thing is that these are people, not pawns for some political theater shenanigans, and treating them like this for the sake of making a point to other states and the Federal government is cruel and inhumane. But I suppose that’s a benefit to the red state governors, because that’s a bonus for their base as well.
I think this is the key part of all of this. Let’s say Arizona usually has X number of immigrants show up, and they’re paid by the Feds to deal with them.
But if X+20000 show up, that extra 20k is kind of undefined. I can see why Arizona doesn’t want to deal with that without being paid for it, and shipping them to Portland might be cheaper, as well as removing them from being Arizona’s problem.
It’s inhumane, but what else is Arizona supposed to do? Cough up state money to deal with something that’s rightly the Federal government’s problem to deal with?
I think that’s the thing that’s unclear here- is it X, or is it X+20000? I’m not sure.
Yeah, but without things like the $3 billion Texas receives from those cities via federal grants. If Texas doesn’t want to actually do anything with immigrants, maybe we stop giving them money for it?
I’m sure this is the reason other states give - but all that "sanctuary " means is that a city or state doesn’t report the undocumented to immigration when they report a crime or enroll kids in school or go to a public hospital. It doesn’t mean that the city or state wants people to come there or that they can’t move them out. Just that they would rather have the undocumented go to the city hospital than having them walk around untreated and spreading disease or go to the police when they are crime victims. And NYC is the only city in the country that has an obligation to provide immediate shelter to anyone who asks, so that when the buses drop people off in Jersey City , JC most likely does not have an obligation to provide shelter.
First, some states have laws that require any asylum seekers to be cared for so they couldn’t legally do what you want.
Second, rounding people up and sending them to places without the ability to care for them, without resources, and against their will is horrific. Remember, these are people, not political toys. You’re proposing that these cities/states do exactly what the Republican governors are doing, and that’s just further punishing people who are already traumatized.
See my second post- I suspect there may be an element of “business NOT as usual” going on, combined with Abbott and his cronies just being assholes.
I don’t think Texas wants a thing to do with immigrants, but they’re effectively forced to by the Feds, due to lack of Federal resources or attention, and the presence of the immigrants. That’s a big part of the point from the GOP’s perspective.
We’ve spoken around here about the GOP as the party of “But what if we didn’t?”, where they just refuse to do their jobs.
How about the Democrats become the party of, “But what if we did?” That is, do their jobs, even if Congress hasn’t approved it.
“Oh, you say we can’t spend money on that? Well, we just did.”
Seriously, if FEMA writes a check, who is going to refuse to cash it? Is Congress going to get its act together enough to punish a bank for taking a government check at face value?
Then, faster than you can say “I slit the sheet, the sheet I slit, upon the slitted sheet I sit”, FEMA’s budget gets slashed from about $20 billion to a $10 McDonald’s gift card and a handful of used Forever Stamps.
Just have to add, I’m not entirely sympathetic to the “these are people” argument. Yes, these are people, but they are people who voluntarily placed themselves in the situation that they find themselves in.
Not defending current governmental policies, and I personally would welcome just about any reasonably healthy immigrant who is willing to work. But there is at least SOME aspect of an individual intentionally placing themself in an untenable situation, and then expecting/demanding assitance because they are in an untenable situation. As with so many aspects of this (and so many other social issues), it is far rom black and white, and the actors are not clearly good and evil.
Is it too late in the thread to ask for a cite as to what the OP is talking about? It’s not clear if we’re talking about refugees, asylees, or just job-seeking migrants, or where they’re being sent, or what authority is processing them.
It’s not clear whether we’re talking about a distinct event, or it’s just another day of someone getting ginned up about the “immigrant invasion”.
Yeah, they should have just given those drug lords and violent gangs a piece of their minds, let them know they weren’t putting up with their threats of rape and murder any more. Put their foot down!