• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Do We Fix Immigration?

If you care whether you are ever taken seriously by more then the hard left on the immigration issue, you will at some point have to stop equating the morals of illegal immigrants with legal immigrants. And stop referring to illegals as refugees. They do not fit the legal definition unless they are actually facing persecution where they came from. As for the Visa overstayers, those laws should be enforced as well. And making it about Trump and Carlson is not going to win the argument. Trump is out of office and Carlson holds no office. As for Cuban migrants, they fit the description of refugees as they were facing persecution. Same with the Vietnamese who fled here as South Vietnam was being overrun. Ukrainians fleeing the present Russian invasion also qualify. Those sneaking across our southern borders are simply coming for welfare entitlements, free healthcare, and free smart phones. Their asylum claims are largely bogus. They are simply being instructed to declare that so they can get released inside the US and assigned a court date they never plan on showing up for.
Your last three sentences are evidence-free assertions, and btw, conflict with the law. In reality, all those who cross our southern borders are genuine asylum seekers fleeing the worst kind of persecution, unequaled since the Holocaust. Not really, the previous sentence is BS, but see how easy it is for me to make assertions without evidence.

One can cross the border illegally and still qualify for asylum. That’s the law. But if you have such incredible insight into the minds of those who come here saying they need protection, there is no need for asylum officers and immigration courts to waste their time and our money examining their claims. Share with others your insight into the minds of migrants. Perhaps you can teach others to be human lie detectors at a distance, without talking to those whose lie s one is detecting. We can then cut the DOJ’s budget significantly.
 
In reality, all those who cross our southern borders are genuine asylum seekers fleeing the worst kind of persecution, unequaled since the Holocaust. Not really, the previous sentence is BS, but see how easy it is for me to make assertions without evidence.
Then you should stop making the goofy claim that those illegally crossing our borders are refugees. They are not.
One can cross the border illegally and still qualify for asylum. That’s the law. But if you have such incredible insight into the minds of those who come here saying they need protection, there is no need for asylum officers and immigration courts to waste their time and our money examining their claims. Share with others your insight into the minds of migrants. Perhaps you can teach others to be human lie detectors at a distance, without talking to those whose lie s one is detecting. We can then cut the DOJ’s budget significantly.
First, while they are coming from impoverished nations, they are not being persecuted where they come from.

The basic qualifications for asylum. Your home nation commits the following:
  • imprisoned and tortured political dissidents or supposed undesirables
  • fired weapons on protesters
  • committed genocide against a certain race
  • made sure that members of a certain religion were left out of the political process,
Simply does not apply to those sneaking across our southern borders from Central America. The vast majority of asylum claims if they even show up for the hearings are denied. They are simply being coached by the cartel coyotes to ask for asylum. I suspect that deep down, you know that, considering that you claim to be advocating for them. No need for mind reading.
 
Then you should stop making the goofy claim that those illegally crossing our borders are refugees. They are not.
I am not claiming that those crossing our borders are refugees. I am making the claim that, as been the case since the law was passed in 1980, that some are, some are not, and our obligation under law is to examine their claims to find those who qualify per the definition below. That’s it.
First, while they are coming from impoverished nations, they are not being persecuted where they come from.
You know this how? Have you interviewed them and tried to check their stories? And some asylum seekers do not come from impoverished nations, or if they do, may be rich themselves.
The basic qualifications for asylum. Your home nation commits the following:
  • imprisoned and tortured political dissidents or supposed undesirables
  • fired weapons on protesters
  • committed genocide against a certain race
  • made sure that members of a certain religion were left out of the political process,
Simply does not apply to those sneaking across our southern borders from Central America. The vast majority of asylum claims if they even show up for the hearings are denied. They are simply being coached by the cartel coyotes to ask for asylum. I suspect that deep down, you know that, considering that you claim to be advocating for them. No need for mind reading.
I evaluated asylum cases for over 15 years, my office processing up to 1200 cases per year for Amnesty International USA. My staff, interns and I documented country conditions relevant to the stories and I offered opinion letters on their cases. The qualifications for asylum are as follows: credibly expressing a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group, not your list above. Whether or not your listed conditions above may be present, they do not qualify you for asylum per se. As you might imagine, all of the terms above have been defined through court or administrative decisions.
 
I imagine a source differen from Heritage might have a different spin on that.
Considering that the article simply recounts the history and current Supreme Court precedent, not likely. Which isn't the same as saying that other sources might have a different opinion of what the law and SC precedent should be.

But operative language in the 1967 Protocol is that "no contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion..." (It then inserts the other categories of protection). That seems to be pretty strong language to overturn through an unrelated immigration law. The UNHCR is pretty specific and strong about this. What language in the legislation passed post-treaty ratification makes you think the US can ignore the explicit language in the Protocol?
I'm sure you know the laws duly passed by Congress better than I do. If any of the language of those laws passed or amended since the 1967 Protocol contradict that Protocol, in whole or in part, then they--not the Protocol--are what the courts are required to uphold. As I've pointed out several times, to the extent laws passed by Congress after any treaty is ratified contradict the treaty, they override it.

I do not know if there is statutory discretion written into the law.
Then you don't know if the Executive branch has statutory authority to choose not to enforce it.

Perhaps we are talking past one another, arguing semantics, as the term used by the authorities when an undocumented asylum seeker is let go is not "released," tho that is literally what happens, but "paroled," suggesting that the person is still in the "custody" of the authorities.
It is true that the Administration* argues that many of these are paroled, but there are problems with this. First, parole is granted on a case-by-case basis, for "urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons for a person to be in the United States and that person merits a favorable exercise of discretion." Do you really think the And the burden of proof is on the applicant, not the government.

But the fact is that whatever we call it, many aliens are let go.
That much is indisputable. What is disputable is whether it is legal. Do you really think that the DHS made a case-by-case determination, with adequate proof offered by those asking for parole, for all 760,000+ that they have released into the US since Biden took office?
 
Considering that the article simply recounts the history and current Supreme Court precedent, not likely. Which isn't the same as saying that other sources might have a different opinion of what the law and SC precedent should be.


I'm sure you know the laws duly passed by Congress better than I do. If any of the language of those laws passed or amended since the 1967 Protocol contradict that Protocol, in whole or in part, then they--not the Protocol--are what the courts are required to uphold. As I've pointed out several times, to the extent laws passed by Congress after any treaty is ratified contradict the treaty, they override it.
As far as I know, there are no laws passed that contradict the Protocol. But are you saying that a law can be passed that nullifies a Senate-ratified treaty, without the Senate addressing that treaty in the legislation? Such a law would also have to repeal the Refugee Act of 1980.
Then you don't know if the Executive branch has statutory authority to choose not to enforce it.


It is true that the Administration* argues that many of these are paroled, but there are problems with this. First, parole is granted on a case-by-case basis, for "urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons for a person to be in the United States and that person merits a favorable exercise of discretion." Do you really think the And the burden of proof is on the applicant, not the government.


That much is indisputable. What is disputable is whether it is legal. Do you really think that the DHS made a case-by-case determination, with adequate proof offered by those asking for parole, for all 760,000+ that they have released into the US since Biden took office?
I don't think they need to make a case by case determination. I was on the border cpl years ago under Trump, and aliens were paroled into the US after a brief interview at the border.
 
But are you saying that a law can be passed that nullifies a Senate-ratified treaty, without the Senate addressing that treaty in the legislation?
That is precisely what I am saying--"when there is a conflict between a statute and a treaty, the Supreme Court has concluded that for purposes of U.S. law the last expression of the sovereign will controls, so that a later-enacted statute overrides an earlier-enacted treaty and vice versa." And why should a law approved by a single house of Congress, even if by super-majority--have priority over laws passed by both houses of Congress, even if by simple majorities? Also note that while a newly-ratified treaty overrides any already-existent federal law that contradicts it, the treaty doesn't summon into existence any nonexistent federal law required for the treaty to go into effect--Congress still needs to pass the necessary legislation.

I don't think they need to make a case by case determination.
According to the Immigration Council, they do:

Each DHS component has its own methodology for making parole decisions. Moreover, the factors to be considered will vary depending on the type of parole requested. In general, however, since parole is a discretionary benefit, all parole decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, with the immigration officer considering the reason for the request and whether it constitutes a basis for parole, and then weighing the positive factors in the noncitizen’s case against any negative factors.
 
Back
Top Bottom