• 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!

Should Title 42 be lifted?

Should Title 42 be lifted?

  • Total voters
    13
BlueTex said:
The amount of ignorance about asylum law is really astounding.

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including analien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

See anything in there about Visas?
Click to expand...
Yes, they may apply. I simply stated that it should be done within our existing laws, by entering the U.S. legally.
 
Individual said:
Yes, they may apply. I simply stated that it should be done within our existing laws, by entering the U.S. legally.
Click to expand...

You clearly can not read... The phrase "whether or not at a designated port of arrival" is a clue.
 
BlueTex said:
You clearly can not read... The phrase "whether or not at a designated port of arrival" is a clue.
Click to expand...
And how would you handle those who entered illegally?
But the question asked is "Should Title 42 be lifted?" which my response to is simply "No."
 
Individual said:
And how would you handle those who entered illegally?
But the question asked is "Should Title 42 be lifted?" which my response to is simply "No."
Click to expand...

The LAW requires and has required, just like during the Trump administration, that ANYONE requesting asylum, whether at a port of entry or not, be granted an asylum hearing.

What would be the justification for continuing title 42?
 
BlueTex said:
The LAW requires and has required, just like during the Trump administration, that ANYONE requesting asylum, whether at a port of entry or not, be granted an asylum hearing.

What would be the justification for continuing title 42?
Click to expand...
Health risk.
 
Voted other, the main reason is no matter if you agree or not with the original intention of Title 42 from the Trump Administration the debate today on removing it is not for the same reason.

Those still for keeping it in place are worried about a surge at the border, those who are not for it tend to disagree with the idea of some pending surge.

Regardless the entire issue is not Title 42, but a failure of Congress to really overhaul Immigration from general immigration we see yearly down to work visas down to asylum reasons. Because of political paralysis we will continue to see administrations deal with this one way or another based on their ideological wants.

... and we kick this quagmire of an issue further down the road.
 
Individual said:
Health risk.
Click to expand...

Here is title 42 section 265:

§265. Suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseasesWhenever the Surgeon General determines that by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health, the Surgeon General, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose. (July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §362, 58 Stat. 704.)


Are you arguing that we wouldn't have COVID in the US if we kept the policy in place?
 
BlueTex said:
Here is title 42 section 265:

§265. Suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseasesWhenever the Surgeon General determines that by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health, the Surgeon General, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose. (July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §362, 58 Stat. 704.)


Are you arguing that we wouldn't have COVID in the US if we kept the policy in place?
Click to expand...
Only if it were totally eradicated in the U.S. at present.
 
The Mark said:
It isn't going to happen because damn near everyone in a position of power knows it's not the answer, and won't do it. And the new ones who show up thinking it is the solution quickly learn it isn't.
Click to expand...
Really??? How is closing the border NOT the answer??? Its absolutely the answer and having an effective border wall is part of that!

Trump understood that as does anyone who lives near the border like I do and see's just how incredibly bad thing really are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom