Major (and long overdue) change to asylum rules coming

[glenn1]

So is the gist of this thread that racists are excited?

Well hopefully this will finally spur a real change in how we handle immigration. Greatly raised quotas for legal channels, increased "seasonal worker" permits allowing time-limited in and out traffic flow, de-prioritization of those who are primarily economic migrants, a closing of policy or legal loopholes that favor particular methods of unauthorized entry (such as travelling with minors), an aggressive enforcement of those who would still attempt to come illegally. The goal is and needs to remain a structured and enforceable means of limiting migration to legal channels where supply basically meets demand and where "illegal immigration" makes zero sense and is counterproductive to those who can't use the authorized, legal immigration channels. If that means we allow in 5 million people annually via legal immigration channels that's fine (or pick a number that's needed and feasible if 5mm is too low), but the end result should be basically zero people attempt to be here illegally. Passing through a half dozen countries on the way here to declare asylum when any of the countries along the way would have been safe for you, is complete and utter bullshit and we shouldn't allow it. In their more honest days, Democrats readily acknowledged that also.

 

[HomerJS]

I'll do that after you look up the definition of "anecdote" and stop trying to apply them to a situation where it has no relevance like this one. CAA of 1966 clearly laid out the legal guidelines for Elian Gonzales to gain asylum. It has nothing to do with someone from Africa who travels to Nicaragua and then through multiple more countries on the way to the U.S. should plausibly be able to claim asylum in the U.S. As if their rival tribe from Rwanda or whatnot would journey along with them and attempt to kill them in Oaxaca state so literally the only place they'd be safe would be in the U.S., as if the same tribal rival who would kill them in Oaxaca would somehow refuse to follow them to Ohio.

Hey genius, this wasn't a fucking anecdote. It was a huge nationwide story for months. Applying changes to Central American countries makes it illegal.

Besides Trump already gave up the ghost. He wants white countries not shithole countries.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd argue the "Remain in Mexico" agreement is already a qualified "bilateral agreement." Since the law doesn't define what constitutes an agreement the AG could determine to be allowable, I highly doubt that SCOTUS second guesses the AG's judgement if he likewise holds "Stay in Mexico" to qualify for purposes of Section (2) exception.

That's ridiculous. By your reasoning, the Trump admin can strong arm any country, even Somalia, into making such an agreement regardless of how our own law defines what a safe third country really is.

 

[jackstar7]

Well hopefully this will finally spur a real change in how we handle immigration. Greatly raised quotas for legal channels, increased "seasonal worker" permits allowing time-limited in and out traffic flow, de-prioritization of those who are primarily economic migrants, a closing of policy or legal loopholes that favor particular methods of unauthorized entry (such as travelling with minors), an aggressive enforcement of those who would still attempt to come illegally. The goal is and needs to remain a structured and enforceable means of limiting migration to legal channels where supply basically meets demand and where "illegal immigration" makes zero sense and is counterproductive to those who can't use the authorized, legal immigration channels. If that means we allow in 5 million people annually via legal immigration channels that's fine (or pick a number that's needed and feasible if 5mm is too low), but the end result should be basically zero people attempt to be here illegally. Passing through a half dozen countries on the way here to declare asylum when any of the countries along the way would have been safe for you, is complete and utter bullshit and we shouldn't allow it. In their more honest days, Democrats readily acknowledged that also.

So like a deep-seated xenophobia. Got it, chief.

 

[dank69]

So is the gist of this thread that racists are excited?

Yep. Everyone knows the best way to judge a person's value is by the color of their skin and/or the patch of dirt they were born on.

 

[zinfamous]

IT SAYS "NOT REVIEWABLE" YOUR HONOR. The defense rests.

lol

I mean, it could work if the only judge sitting in front of you is Kavanaugh with his beer helmet on and ready to give you a bro fist after that totally slamming defense.

 

[zinfamous]

If you're going to imagine that SCOTUS holds part of the constitution (Art 3, Sec 2) unconstitutional then we might as well just imagine they hold the entire constitution to be unconstitutional.....

So in your thinking, this is something that Congress and SCOTUS has never done?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yeh, yeh, yeh. Fuck them icky brown poors! Send 'em back to the American owned plantation of the Northern Triangle! Bring back the fugitive slave act!

Yeah yeah yeah, open borders for all! I'll open up my house to everyone! (lol jk I lock my doors from those dirty immigrants)

Keep spouting bullshit from your mouth while shitting on immigrants just as much as anyone else.

 

[zinfamous]

It would be a judicial coup if they ignored Art 3 Sec 2. Unsure why this is even a question here.
.

I like how you are now stuck on repeating the same insane thing over and over again, as if repetition of an insane thing will suddenly validate it. I mean, it's not like you guys don't have a very public example of this strategy, encouraging you on.

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah yeah yeah, open borders for all! I'll open up my house to everyone! (lol jk I lock my doors from those dirty immigrants)

Keep spouting bullshit from your mouth while shitting on immigrants just as much as anyone else.

no one supports open borders. Stay on target, bro.

Do you have a mental problem?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

On the surface it is the right thing. Basically if you travel thru Mexico which has been deemed a safe asylum place, you need to apply for asylum there. Then if you chose apply for legal immigration into the US.

You're absolutely correct.

And that's the point - If you travel through a safe asylum then going to another country is no longer asylum. It is being choosey with what you want.

If asylum is what you're looking for - then it has already been obtained.

 

[JSt0rm]

trump put his foot in the mouth and proved he is a racist. Now the courts have to take that into account.

 

[jackstar7]

Yeah yeah yeah, open borders for all! I'll open up my house to everyone! (lol jk I lock my doors from those dirty immigrants)

Keep spouting bullshit from your mouth while shitting on immigrants just as much as anyone else.

Do you ever find your mashed potatoes too spicy?

I gotta assume you only like bland foods.

 

[jackstar7]

no one supports open borders. Stay on target, bro.

Do you have a mental problem?

Also we have open borders. You just need money and they open right up.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Ironically, the nations these people are fleeing are fully backed by the US Government. Perhaps the US could expend their energy towards helping fix these nations instead of Venezuela or Iran? You can solve 2 issues, the Humanitarian crisis these people face and the issue of so many seeking Asylum at the US border.

Oh I'm sorry, hundreds of millions isn't enough? Let's just throw billions and hope the solution magically sticks to the wall this time around.

These countries are shitholes with shithole leaders and shithole people. They will not industrialize anytime in the next 50 years. But it's all our fault... if only the US didn't exist they would all be holding hands together in perfect harmony.

 

[sandorski]

Oh I'm sorry, hundreds of millions isn't enough? Let's just throw billions and hope the solution magically sticks to the wall this time around.

These countries are shitholes with shithole leaders and shithole people. They will not industrialize anytime in the next 50 years. But it's all our fault... if only the US didn't exist they would all be holding hands together in perfect harmony.

It is largely your fault. Learn some History.

 

[jackstar7]

Oh I'm sorry, hundreds of millions isn't enough? Let's just throw billions and hope the solution magically sticks to the wall this time around.

These countries are shitholes with shithole leaders and shithole people. They will not industrialize anytime in the next 50 years. But it's all our fault... if only the US didn't exist they would all be holding hands together in perfect harmony.

You are very brave.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It is largely your fault. Learn some History.

if only the US didn't exist they would all be holding hands together in perfect harmony.

 

[sandorski]

That's your stupid statement.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

That's your stupid statement.

That is you not having a retort because you know I'm correct. Try again silly douche.

 

[Greenman]

Another one that will end up in front of the Supreme's. It will be interesting to see how they rule and if the abject failure of the current system will enter into the deliberation.

 

[jackstar7]

Another one that will end up in front of the Supreme's. It will be interesting to see how they rule and if the abject failure of the current system will enter into the deliberation.

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)?

 

[thilanliyan]

Another one that will end up in front of the Supreme's. It will be interesting to see how they rule and if the abject failure of the current system will enter into the deliberation.

Haven't you been paying attention? This can't even go to courts because the AG checkmated libtards already.

 

[thilanliyan]

These countries are shitholes with shithole leaders and shithole people. They will not industrialize anytime in the next 50 years. But it's all our fault... if only the US didn't exist they would all be holding hands together in perfect harmony.

As far as I'm aware, a long time ago the US supported tin pot dictators in some of those countries instead of elected leaders, leading to some of the issues we see today. I think something similar happened in Iran as well, with a coup supported by the CIA.

You can't screw up the countries and then complain about responsibility.

 

[interchange]

I'd argue the "Remain in Mexico" agreement is already a qualified "bilateral agreement." Since the law doesn't define what constitutes an agreement the AG could determine to be allowable, I highly doubt that SCOTUS second guesses the AG's judgement if he likewise holds "Stay in Mexico" to qualify for purposes of Section (2) exception.

See below: https://psmag.com/social-justice/what-the-agreement-between-mexico-and-the-us-means-for-migrants

It's quite clear that the US lobbied Mexico to sign a "safe third country" agreement like we have with Canada and that Mexico balked at that in order to come to the agreement with the Trump admin.

You can highly doubt a projected SC opinion all you want. It clearly and explicitly conflicts with Mexico's wishes. That does not a bilateral agreement make. If somehow Trump would wrangle a victory on this, this would be an extremely major affront to Mexico and a major blow for anyone seeking to have peaceable foreign relations with us.