trump's opposition (and then all the ducklings following suit) had nothing to do with political principle
it had everything to do with election year politics
Kamala’s lead keeps dwindling. JFC this is pitiful.
- Thread starter artradley
- Start date
it had everything to do with election year politics
I'm totally for legal immigration as my wife and son in law are both immigrants. Being against illegal immigration shouldn't be controversial.
That Bipartisan bill had funding to Ukraine for the next 6 years attached to it.
Even dems are starting to see the Ukraine war for the money laundromat it actually is.
Penny here, dollar in my pocket, penny there, dollar in my pocket.
Seeking asylum shouldn't be considered illegal, even you can admit that is over 90% of what is considered illegal immigration.
It's not bad enough that you're voting for the rapist but you're cheering for Russia as well. What a patriot!
The support for Ukraine has been bipartisan with the exception of the MAGA branch of the GOP. The support provided to this point has been approved by both parties.
The border bill your team killed would have addressed that. Why do you insist on being a moron?
A Quicker, More Restrictive Non-Custodial Asylum Process for Border Entrants
The bill includes several provisions that would overhaul asylum in the U.S. independently of the “trigger” —in other words, changes that will happen regardless of how many people are trying to come to the United States.The bill raises the standard for being able to claim asylum as decided at the initial screening interview stage when an asylum officer determines whether an individual can progress to making an asylum claim. Instead of being required to establish a “significant possibility” that their asylum claim would prevail, asylum seekers would need to establish a “reasonable possibility,” which is a higher bar to meet. This standard is already used for other forms of humanitarian relief, in what’s known as a “reasonable fear interview.” In 2023, 65 percent of people passed their “credible fear interviews” for asylum, while 44 percent passed “reasonable fear interviews” subject to the “reasonable possibility” standard.
The bill would add a new bar to asylum if there are “reasonable grounds for concluding” that a person could avoid persecution by moving to another location in their country of nationality, or if they have no nationality, by moving to another location in their country of “last habitual residence.” While a version of this bar is currently in place under federal regulation and case law, this would enshrine a single version of it in statute.
The bill requires asylum officers to consider certain potential bars to asylum at the screening interview stage, giving the asylum seeker less time to prepare evidence to counter them. Currently, these bars are assessed as part of the asylum claim itself. However, the bill does not require the asylum officer to conclude that the person is ineligible for asylum as a result at this stage.
The bill creates a new process into which people can be placed who come to the U.S./Mexico border without papers, as an alternative to expedited removal. This “protection determination” process is designed to take six months, during which time the asylum seeker would be allowed to live in the community in the U.S., while monitored under government Alternatives to Detention programs. Under this process, the government would have 90 days to conduct a fear screening, at which an asylum officer can deny or grant asylum or other protections on the spot—or can pass people through to a full “merits interview.” Those granted protection, referred to a merits interview, or who couldn’t be interviewed within 90 days, would become eligible for work permits.
All steps in the “protection determination” process would be conducted by asylum officers, with no role for immigration courts and very little judicial review of final decisions. At the same time, it would be almost entirely non-adversarial. The bill ultimately requires virtually all asylum seekers encountered at the border to be placed in either expedited removal or in this process.
No; I'm reciting what was actually reported about Nunes' dairy farm, and illegals they employed.
Joe tightened that up 3 months ago without the bill.
Biden rolls out asylum restrictions, months in the making, to help 'gain control' of the border
The U.N.’s International Organization for Migration is responding to President Joe Biden's effort to restrict asylum at the U.S.
apnews.com
Why didn't he do it 3 1/2 years ago?
So you're just bitching to bitch? Sounds about rightJoe tightened that up 3 months ago without the bill.
Biden rolls out asylum restrictions, months in the making, to help 'gain control' of the border
The U.N.’s International Organization for Migration is responding to President Joe Biden's effort to restrict asylum at the U.S.
Why didn't he do it 3 1/2 years ago?
It's not,.. Lying to facilitate an improper asylum claim should be considered illegal.
the immigration bill had $60B in funding for ukraine
the standalone funding bill that was passed in april had $60B in funding for ukraine
SUCCESS!
and that got passed in the standalone foreign aid bill
you understand how dumb it sounds to say the immigration bill was bad becuase it contained/secured ukraine funding when a standalone bill with the same ukraine provisions passed a few months later?
I think immigration reform is needed. I am a large proponent of immigration as long as not overwhelming the job supply. So in the grand scheme of things we needed that immigration and now we are more balanced on supply vs demand for workers. Now the borders should not be overwhelmed, currently they are not. Although more can be done including the bill that was shot down by Trump. Serious question. What do consider legal immigration? Anyone not seeking asylum basically the rich and affluent across the world?
Agree
Not really serious as you loaded it at the end.
Anyway, "legal" immigration would be by applying through USCIS and going through that process.
Submit a Petition
In the case of asylum ....
Asylum | USCIS
www.uscis.gov
"You may only file this application if you are physically present in the United States, and you are not a U.S. citizen."Agree
Not really serious as you loaded it at the end.
Anyway, "legal" immigration would be by applying through USCIS and going through that process.
Submit a Petition
travel.state.gov
In the case of asylum ....
Asylum | USCIS
www.uscis.gov
You can file it out of country...I filed my wife's in Germany. Keep looking.
just quoting the link you provided
i guess you know the system better than USCIS
Seems a good time to remind everyone that every driver commits a crime the moment they go over the speed limit.
The website you linked disagrees. Says you must be present in the US and not a citizen. You prove my point.just shows how much reform is needed and that you don’t have as good of a handle on the immigration process as you thought you did.
Last edited:
What is the republican proposal to fix that?
Why didn't Trump do it 7 1/2 years ago?Joe tightened that up 3 months ago without the bill.
Biden rolls out asylum restrictions, months in the making, to help 'gain control' of the border
The U.N.’s International Organization for Migration is responding to President Joe Biden's effort to restrict asylum at the U.S.
Why didn't he do it 3 1/2 years ago?
I believe that quoted statement was referring to asylum seekers. Your wife didn’t claim she was seeking asylum when she applied, did she?
Actually it is extremely serious. Trump had basically stated only those that were rich, affluent, or of high education in specific fields would be considered for immigration. You had individuals who were here legally that were worried to go visit family overseas because they feared Trumps laws wouldn’t allow them back in. These were highly educated individuals and had family passing away overseas and didn’t go say goodbye.Agree
Not really serious as you loaded it at the end.
Anyway, "legal" immigration would be by applying through USCIS and going through that process.
Submit a Petition
In the case of asylum ....
Asylum | USCIS
www.uscis.gov
Eventually. But it might take years or even decades. We've been telling the world how wonderful we are, how democratic, how abundant our riches, etc., etc., for decades and decades. You can't flip a switch on that.
Moreover, we have been supporting oppressive governments and exploitative businesses that people want to flee. We should stop. But will we?
Finally, climate change is beginning to fuel additional refugee flow. And we aren't doing what we know we should do to address that pressure.
Kinda destroys the claim that immigrants are dangerous, don't ya think?
lol - I realize Gus is a Trump supporter; not sure he understands that about me. 😉
We'd take you more seriously if you didn't support the criminal in chief.
Who am I kidding.? There's hardly anything you could do to be taken seriously.
