Major (and long overdue) change to asylum rules coming

[hal2kilo]

Well then you'll have a slam dunk in the courts, I'm sure, haha.

It will be interesting to see your shock, disbelief, and rage when the courts block this.

Seems he was not so adamant when it comes to "the Treasury shall produce tax returns upon request by Congress".

 

[Greenman]

When you say the current system, do you mean the exploitative labor market that yearns for cheap labor? Or the system of xenophobic oppression that wants to exploit the desperation of immigrants and torture and torment them? Can you be more specific in what you see as the failure(s)?

All of that, and the fact that 90% of asylum seekers never show up for their hearing. The system has failed, it's overwhelmed and buckling under the weight of hundreds of thousands of people who want to get away from the 3rd world shit hole they come from. I understand that, I'd do it myself if I were in their position. But the result is we've created a peasant class that's turned out to be very expensive to maintain. That's another failure.
We keep doing stupid things to avoid addressing the problem, and end up playing whack a mole with peoples lives. Most of these folks don't want a hand out, they don't want to make trouble, they just want a quiet life and don't mind busting their asses to get it.
We need to put clear concise easy to follow rules in place and stick to them. We need a lot more logic and a lot less emotion.
The situation is never going to be good, but it should at least be understandable and consistent.

 

[Jhhnn]

All of that, and the fact that 90% of asylum seekers never show up for their hearing.

You know better than to believe anything coming out of the Trump admin on this subject. Shame on ya-

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...ty-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/

 

[Victorian Gray]

All of that, and the fact that 90% of asylum seekers never show up for their hearing. The system has failed, it's overwhelmed and buckling under the weight of hundreds of thousands of people who want to get away from the 3rd world shit hole they come from. I understand that, I'd do it myself if I were in their position. But the result is we've created a peasant class that's turned out to be very expensive to maintain. That's another failure.
We keep doing stupid things to avoid addressing the problem, and end up playing whack a mole with peoples lives. Most of these folks don't want a hand out, they don't want to make trouble, they just want a quiet life and don't mind busting their asses to get it.
We need to put clear concise easy to follow rules in place and stick to them. We need a lot more logic and a lot less emotion.
The situation is never going to be good, but it should at least be understandable and consistent.

"In 2017, the vast majority, 89 percent, of those claiming asylum showed up for their trials, meaning that decisions were not made “in absentia.” In 2016, 91 percent showed up, and in 2015, 93 percent of asylum decisions were not made in absentia, meaning that the asylum seeker was, indeed, present."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...tats-say-about-asylum-seekers-and-court-dates

 

[K1052]

All of that, and the fact that 90% of asylum seekers never show up for their hearing. The system has failed, it's overwhelmed and buckling under the weight of hundreds of thousands of people who want to get away from the 3rd world shit hole they come from. I understand that, I'd do it myself if I were in their position. But the result is we've created a peasant class that's turned out to be very expensive to maintain. That's another failure.
We keep doing stupid things to avoid addressing the problem, and end up playing whack a mole with peoples lives. Most of these folks don't want a hand out, they don't want to make trouble, they just want a quiet life and don't mind busting their asses to get it.
We need to put clear concise easy to follow rules in place and stick to them. We need a lot more logic and a lot less emotion.
The situation is never going to be good, but it should at least be understandable and consistent.

Jesus chist...the no-show rate for asylum seekers was like 10%. Better than any other group.

"Expensive to maintain" oh ok even though CATO says it's a basically a wash compared to native borns.

Where are you getting your info from?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Jesus chist...the no-show rate for asylum seekers was like 10%. Better than any other group.

"Expensive to maintain" oh ok even though CATO says it's a basically a wash compared to native borns.

Where are you getting your info from?

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=90%+of+asylum+seekers+dont+show+up+to+hearing&s=g


https://ijr.com/dhs-secretary-whopping-percentage-migrants-dont-show-hearing/

 

[trenchfoot]

Like most ill informed and often illegal Trump administration policies this is doomed to failure either in the courts or by causing asylum seekers to just enter the country illegally and disappear into the fabric of the nation.

Much like harsh policies solved the drug problem they're going to fix this right up too.

That's exactly what businesses that exploit undocumented migrants want. They don't want registered migrants seeking asylum because they are a known entity to the gov't. whose finances can be tracked/traced. These businesses want undoc'd immigrants who are in fear of being caught and are thus amenable to being paid slave wages without complaint.

 

[K1052]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=90%+of+asylum+seekers+dont+show+up+to+hearing&s=g


https://ijr.com/dhs-secretary-whopping-percentage-migrants-dont-show-hearing/

Would it surprise you to learn he misrepresented the facts?

You’re using specific types of data,” McAleenan told Durbin. “I’m going to give you additional data.”

McAleenan said that under the Family Case Management Program, more than 100 people with final orders of removal — asylum seekers who lost their cases — didn’t show up to be removed. The 2016 program, which provided certain asylum seekers with caseworkers to educate them on their rights and responsibilities, lasted for about a year. In that time, the program served 954 people.

In other words, only 10-15% of asylum seekers who participated in the program were noncompliant. Though McAleenan answered Durbin’s question by talking about the Family Case Management Program, he later conceded that the 90% figure referred to something else altogether.

Nearly 90% of the approximately 7,000 families whose asylum cases have been handled in recent months skipped their hearings, McAleenan said, although he didn’t provide details on where that figure came from.

But Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a policy analyst at the American Immigration Council, told VICE News that McAleenan was likely referring to cases handled by the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s family unit docket. Studies show that 86% of families released from ICE detention between 2001 and 2016 showed up in court.


“Less than 17% of cases placed on the family unit docket have ended because a family missed court,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “By leaving out the vast majority of cases, which are still pending, McAleenan gave the false impression that families don't show up for court.”

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...ef-is-giving-bad-immigration-data-to-congress

 

[Greenman]

You know better than to believe anything coming out of the Trump admin on this subject. Shame on ya-

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...ty-undocumented-immigrants-show-court-data-s/

Different than asylum seekers I assume.
I did the same google search as you, go figure.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Would it surprise you to learn he misrepresented the facts?



https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...ef-is-giving-bad-immigration-data-to-congress

I have zero clue which side to believe - since I haven't done research on this subject as of yet.

I'm simply giving you a link to what Greenman was likely referring to.

 

[zinfamous]

Why is that whenever conservatives try to refer to "Facts" they are always just easily provable lies?

Is there some brain thing where all they need is a sorta-right sounding thing that defends a pre-conceived notion and they will refuse to investigate whether or not that thing is true?

Why are conservatives so easily duped?

 

[Greenman]

Jesus chist...the no-show rate for asylum seekers was like 10%. Better than any other group.

"Expensive to maintain" oh ok even though CATO says it's a basically a wash compared to native borns.

Where are you getting your info from?

The 90% number came from ins. The cost of illegals came from a site linked by someone here in P&N I believe.

 

[Dulanic]

I have zero clue which side to believe - since I haven't done research on this subject as of yet.

I'm simply giving you a link to what Greenman was likely referring to.

Based on Trumps non stop bullshit, I know which I'd believe.

 

[K1052]

I have zero clue which side to believe - since I haven't done research on this subject as of yet.

I'm simply giving you a link to what Greenman was likely referring to.

My question was mostly rhetorical. The 90% figure was something widely circulated right leaning outlets even though it is a false representation per DHS own reported figures.

 

[Jhhnn]

Would it surprise you to learn he misrepresented the facts?



https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...ef-is-giving-bad-immigration-data-to-congress

Alternative facts from the Trump admin? Only since the bigly-est inauguration crowd ever!

Hell- Trump himself is closing in rapidly on 11,000 lies-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ding-claims-over-days/?utm_term=.c72874bbd442

Utterly gullible- over and over and over again.

 

[K1052]

The 90% number came from ins. The cost of illegals came from a site linked by someone here in P&N I believe.

McAleenan (Acting DHS sec) claimed it at a hearing, only problem was that almost totally misrepresented the situation but that didn't stop it from ricocheting around the conservative news sources like a pinball.

 

[Greenman]

McAleenan (Acting DHS sec) claimed it at a hearing, only problem was that almost totally misrepresented the situation but that didn't stop it from ricocheting around the conservative news sources like a pinball.

So who has the real numbers since we can't believe the government?

 

[jackstar7]

I have zero clue which side to believe.

I want to preserve this out of context. I feel like it is you in full wrapped up in 8 words.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have zero clue which side to believe - since I haven't done research on this subject as of yet.

I'm simply giving you a link to what Greenman was likely referring to.

Born yesterday, huh? Trump & his sycophants lie about literally everything & you can't figure out who *not* to believe?

 

[jackstar7]

So who has the real numbers since we can't believe the government?

This is a good distillation of you. You see the government as a monolith.

Very big-brained of you.

 

[glenn1]

Seems he was not so adamant when it comes to "the Treasury shall produce tax returns upon request by Congress".

I support the repeal of that provision for privacy reasons, I’m not saying it’s unconstitutional for Congress to have done as @fskimospy seens to be saying about this law. However I believe the same privacy rationale that applies to Roe v. Wade also applies to the tax law so if SCOTUS struck down the law on those grounds so be it.

 

[jackstar7]

I support the repeal of that provision for privacy reasons, I’m not saying it’s unconstitutional for Congress to have done as @fskimospy seens to be saying about this law. However I believe the same privacy rationale that applies to Roe v. Wade also applies to the tax law so if SCOTUS struck down the law on those grounds so be it.

You're advocating for a more opaque government... and as I recall you're generally not in favor of the government, right?

Lots of big-braining in here.

 

[Jhhnn]

So who has the real numbers since we can't believe the government?

It's obvious from the Vice article linked above that McAleenan pulled the 90% number out of his ass.

 

[Jhhnn]

dp

 

[K1052]

So who has the real numbers since we can't believe the government?

Look at the thread above. The government publishes these figures. It was McAleenan who gave an inaccurate impression to justify a crackdown and the right wing news ran across the internet with the story that most asylum seekers don't show for their court appearances. 80-90% of them (or more) do.

 

[glenn1]

You're advocating for a more opaque government... and as I recall you're generally not in favor of the government, right?

Lots of big-braining in here.

The law doesn’t just apply to federal employees but rather every single tax return filed. It serves zero government transparency objective for random Congress Critters to have unrestricted access to literally any private citizen’s return. Congress has zero “transparency” reasons to get a tax return of the 105 year old great grandmother from rural Vermont filing returns on her $12k annual pension checks of her deceased husband as it has no bearing on “government opacity.”