U.S. removes migrants from Texas border camp, begins flights to Haiti
[Article includes pictures]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/migran ... 021-09-19/

https://apnews.com/article/health-mexic ... 7ef0015485

U.S. border agents began expelling plane-loads of mostly Haitian migrants from a large makeshift camp they had set up after wading across the Rio Grande separating Mexico and the United States, with repatriation flights arriving in Haiti on Sunday.

The sprawling camp under the international bridge attracted more than 12,000 migrants at one point and marked a new challenge for U.S. authorities, who have sought to reduce the flow of Central Americans and now hundreds of Haitians who have fled rampant poverty, gang violence and seemingly non-stop natural disasters back home. U.S. authorities have moved 3,300 migrants since Friday from Del Rio, Texas, and announced a new daily schedule of flights to the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, where some officials expressed concern on Sunday for a potentially large influx of returning migrants in the next few days.

I don't understand migrant migration. Many migrants left Haiti and somehow got to South America. And have been living there for several years or more. And then, they just uproot from where they were living in South America, and decide to cross the American border, in Texas, to now apply for asylum. Is that how asylum works?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

U.S. removes migrants from Texas border camp, begins flights to Haiti
[Article includes pictures]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/migran ... 021-09-19/

https://apnews.com/article/health-mexic ... 7ef0015485

U.S. border agents began expelling plane-loads of mostly Haitian migrants from a large makeshift camp they had set up after wading across the Rio Grande separating Mexico and the United States, with repatriation flights arriving in Haiti on Sunday.

The sprawling camp under the international bridge attracted more than 12,000 migrants at one point and marked a new challenge for U.S. authorities, who have sought to reduce the flow of Central Americans and now hundreds of Haitians who have fled rampant poverty, gang violence and seemingly non-stop natural disasters back home. U.S. authorities have moved 3,300 migrants since Friday from Del Rio, Texas, and announced a new daily schedule of flights to the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, where some officials expressed concern on Sunday for a potentially large influx of returning migrants in the next few days.

I don't understand migrant migration. Many migrants left Haiti and somehow got to South America. And have been living there for several years or more. And then, they just uproot from where they were living in South America, and decide to cross the American border, in Texas, to now apply for asylum. Is that how asylum works?

Asylee applicants can not apply from any US consulate or embassy abroad, so would-be applicants MUST come to the US border and cross or otherwise enter the United States.

The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States considers asylum only for aliens who are physically present in the United States.

https://pl.usembassy.gov/visas/politica ... -refugees/

An explanation of the process here:

https://immigrationforum.org/article/fa ... m-process/

DIRECTFLT wrote:

U.S. removes migrants from Texas border camp, begins flights to Haiti
[Article includes pictures]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/migran ... 021-09-19/

https://apnews.com/article/health-mexic ... 7ef0015485

U.S. border agents began expelling plane-loads of mostly Haitian migrants from a large makeshift camp they had set up after wading across the Rio Grande separating Mexico and the United States, with repatriation flights arriving in Haiti on Sunday.

The sprawling camp under the international bridge attracted more than 12,000 migrants at one point and marked a new challenge for U.S. authorities, who have sought to reduce the flow of Central Americans and now hundreds of Haitians who have fled rampant poverty, gang violence and seemingly non-stop natural disasters back home. U.S. authorities have moved 3,300 migrants since Friday from Del Rio, Texas, and announced a new daily schedule of flights to the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, where some officials expressed concern on Sunday for a potentially large influx of returning migrants in the next few days.

I don't understand migrant migration. Many migrants left Haiti and somehow got to South America. And have been living there for several years or more. And then, they just uproot from where they were living in South America, and decide to cross the American border, in Texas, to now apply for asylum. Is that how asylum works?

It is generally accepted that asylum seekers ask for asylum in the first safe country they arrive at. I don't know of a law that actually requires it, but then again international law is pretty obscure anyway. The problem is that most of the asylum seekers are "asylum shopping". I will also add that being poor is not a valid reason for asylum in America.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/article ... 10914.html

DIRECTFLT wrote:

U.S. removes migrants from Texas border camp, begins flights to Haiti
[Article includes pictures]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/migran ... 021-09-19/

https://apnews.com/article/health-mexic ... 7ef0015485

U.S. border agents began expelling plane-loads of mostly Haitian migrants from a large makeshift camp they had set up after wading across the Rio Grande separating Mexico and the United States, with repatriation flights arriving in Haiti on Sunday.

The sprawling camp under the international bridge attracted more than 12,000 migrants at one point and marked a new challenge for U.S. authorities, who have sought to reduce the flow of Central Americans and now hundreds of Haitians who have fled rampant poverty, gang violence and seemingly non-stop natural disasters back home. U.S. authorities have moved 3,300 migrants since Friday from Del Rio, Texas, and announced a new daily schedule of flights to the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, where some officials expressed concern on Sunday for a potentially large influx of returning migrants in the next few days.

I don't understand migrant migration. Many migrants left Haiti and somehow got to South America. And have been living there for several years or more. And then, they just uproot from where they were living in South America, and decide to cross the American border, in Texas, to now apply for asylum. Is that how asylum works?

Here is how it happened.

Months/Years ago Haitian Migrants left Haiti for Ecuador.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... s-violence

Most fly from Haiti to Ecuador, which does not require a visa for Haitian visitors, before either trying to find work in Brazil or Chile, or heading north, crossing the perilous jungles of the Darién Gap and onwards to Central America and Mexico.

Then they travel north if they want.

The recent influx to the border coincides with the recent earthquake in Haiti, and coincides with plans to halt deportations while Haiti recovered.

But Haitian arrivals hoping for a welcome mat when processed may be in for a rude awakening. The Biden administration has reversed a hold on deportations to Haiti that it put in place following the earthquake. Flights full of migrants began leaving for Port-au-Prince this week, and eight more will reportedly go next week.

So now they get a flight back to Haiti, and they then have to come up with more money to continue their migration.

Amazing how quickly and efficiently they have been able to get logistics in place to send these people home, but when such is / was suggested previously there was a long littany of issues / reasons why this could not be done.
The things that make you say hhhmmmm.....

par13del wrote:

Amazing how quickly and efficiently they have been able to get logistics in place to send these people home, but when such is / was suggested previously there was a long littany of issues / reasons why this could not be done.
The things that make you say hhhmmmm.....

Not sure what you are saying about logistics here. This one is not the easiest, but it has some easily recognized cost advantages. These migrants mostly have no asylum status as they weren't coming directly from Haiti, and putting them back in Haiti actually makes the most sense as it will be cost prohibitive for them to return. The other question is why other countries are allowing these people to keep pushing north.

casinterest wrote:

The other question is why other countries are allowing these people to keep pushing north.

They have their own problems - stopping migrant flow would be a huge drain on resources that are already stretched thin.

bpatus297 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

U.S. removes migrants from Texas border camp, begins flights to Haiti
[Article includes pictures]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/migran ... 021-09-19/

https://apnews.com/article/health-mexic ... 7ef0015485

U.S. border agents began expelling plane-loads of mostly Haitian migrants from a large makeshift camp they had set up after wading across the Rio Grande separating Mexico and the United States, with repatriation flights arriving in Haiti on Sunday.

The sprawling camp under the international bridge attracted more than 12,000 migrants at one point and marked a new challenge for U.S. authorities, who have sought to reduce the flow of Central Americans and now hundreds of Haitians who have fled rampant poverty, gang violence and seemingly non-stop natural disasters back home. U.S. authorities have moved 3,300 migrants since Friday from Del Rio, Texas, and announced a new daily schedule of flights to the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, where some officials expressed concern on Sunday for a potentially large influx of returning migrants in the next few days.

I don't understand migrant migration. Many migrants left Haiti and somehow got to South America. And have been living there for several years or more. And then, they just uproot from where they were living in South America, and decide to cross the American border, in Texas, to now apply for asylum. Is that how asylum works?

It is generally accepted that asylum seekers ask for asylum in the first safe country they arrive at. I don't know of a law that actually requires it, but then again international law is pretty obscure anyway. The problem is that most of the asylum seekers are "asylum shopping". I will also add that being poor is not a valid reason for asylum in America.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/article ... 10914.html

There is no international law that requires asylum seekers to ask for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. The right in the UK and Tories have argued this for years, and do so to this day with the problems the UK has with folks getting on small inflatable boats from France and cross the channel. Still people don't understand why they want to be in the UK. Similar reasons why folks want to go to the US (language, relatives, relative stability, rule of law etc).

I can recommend watching the movie "Sin Nombre". It is heartbreaking.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127715/

There are no easy answers. It is heartbreaking.
I am very surprised that Biden's administration is doing this but I agree it is necessary. I believe we could have multi millions on our doorstep if the border is open. When the right of asylum was issued after the holocaust, the signers did not forsee the possibility of such large migrations. There is a difference between what the Jews faced and economic refugees.

casinterest wrote:

par13del wrote:

Amazing how quickly and efficiently they have been able to get logistics in place to send these people home, but when such is / was suggested previously there was a long littany of issues / reasons why this could not be done.
The things that make you say hhhmmmm.....

Not sure what you are saying about logistics here. This one is not the easiest, but it has some easily recognized cost advantages. These migrants mostly have no asylum status as they weren't coming directly from Haiti, and putting them back in Haiti actually makes the most sense as it will be cost prohibitive for them to return. The other question is why other countries are allowing these people to keep pushing north.

In years past we have had numerous South Americans gathered including the recent convoy and the talk / push back then was that relocation to their home countries was not (insert political talking points here)

As to why the home countries do not prevent, well let's look at what we know.
1. Most migrant workers return funds to their home country, now some may say they do not pay their fair share of tax, but the nation of Haiti does receive significant funds.
2. As with the ME migrants to Europe, less at home is less to take care of, and if some family remains, number 1 will be an asset.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... countries/

Reinhardt wrote:

There is no international law that requires asylum seekers to ask for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.

Sure there is. The U.S. has such agreements with Canada and Mexico. An agrement between two or more sovereign countries is international law.

In May 2019, Mexico and the United States negotiated an agreement expanding enforcement along Mexico’s southern border in response to President Trump’s threats of tariffs on Mexican goods. The deal left open the possibility of developing a bilateral asylum plan that would mirror other “country of first-entry” asylum resettlement agreements like the U.S.-Canada Safe Third Agreement and the European Union’s (EU) Dublin III Regulation, which requires asylum seekers1 to apply for protection in the first country they enter that has signed the agreement.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/requi ... -crisis-2/

The asylum argument is based on “open borders”; if one can claim asylum after passing thru three or four “safe countries”, they’re economic migrants, not a persecuted individual. With the global economic inequalities, there’s no way the developed world can allow unlimited economic immigration. Plus, those immigrants are depriving their home countries talent, risk taking, work ethic only making things worse in both the “sending”and receiving countries.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The asylum argument is based on “open borders”; if one can claim asylum after passing thru three or four “safe countries”, they’re economic migrants, not a persecuted individual. With the global economic inequalities, there’s no way the developed world can allow unlimited economic immigration. Plus, those immigrants are depriving their home countries talent, risk taking, work ethic only making things worse in both the “sending”and receiving countries.

Who can actually blame them?. Their countries are rife with government corruption. They might be starving there, no job no future.

Don't think those countries have much of a negative effect, for example in this case Haiti. These people would work here and send money back home. That means that their local economies will get dollars that they need, otherwise they won't get if they stay there.

Nonetheless the realistic approach to all of this is if these countries could actually manage themselves to offer jobs and a decent life for them, but that's wishful thinking.

The problem now is that the current US administration has been all over the place on the messaging, and since he took office, those economic migrants have seen the writing on the wall and of course they will try to get in. If you are weak on immigration that's the projection you give.

par13del wrote:

casinterest wrote:

par13del wrote:

Amazing how quickly and efficiently they have been able to get logistics in place to send these people home, but when such is / was suggested previously there was a long littany of issues / reasons why this could not be done.
The things that make you say hhhmmmm.....

Not sure what you are saying about logistics here. This one is not the easiest, but it has some easily recognized cost advantages. These migrants mostly have no asylum status as they weren't coming directly from Haiti, and putting them back in Haiti actually makes the most sense as it will be cost prohibitive for them to return. The other question is why other countries are allowing these people to keep pushing north.

In years past we have had numerous South Americans gathered including the recent convoy and the talk / push back then was that relocation to their home countries was not (insert political talking points here)

As to why the home countries do not prevent, well let's look at what we know.
1. Most migrant workers return funds to their home country, now some may say they do not pay their fair share of tax, but the nation of Haiti does receive significant funds.
2. As with the ME migrants to Europe, less at home is less to take care of, and if some family remains, number 1 will be an asset.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... countries/

It depends on the asylum reason here right? These folks have a harder cross to bear as their assylum seems to stem from more economic reasons that persecution.

Haitians that fled to Ecuador which does not have any Visa requirements, have a hard time explaining any type of hardship for entry to the US, as they have opportunities throughout South America.

There are very real issues in some of the Central American countries.

As for the "remittances:" Those are small compared to what immigrants generate in income in the US, and what stays in the US. We already have many jobs "Americans" do not want to do.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I am kind of wondering, why is it that Black or Brown people want to illegally cross the border into a country that is systematically racist and full of white supremacist.

Easy. It’s still better than wherever they left.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I am kind of wondering, why is it that Black or Brown people want to illegally cross the border into a country that is systematically racist and full of white supremacist.

Don't quite understand if the same people that promulgate this, in fact allow this to happen when they always remind us how bad it is for us who aren't white this country is.

Something doesn't make sense.

If this question needs asking you have not done enough traveling. There are places where it was considered ‘normal’ to encounter three stabbing victims in a week’s stay (with no ambulance in sight) and the first recommend from hotel concierge is ‘absolutely do not be out after dark’.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I am kind of wondering, why is it that Black or Brown people want to illegally cross the border into a country that is systematically racist and full of white supremacist.

Don't quite understand if the same people that promulgate this, in fact allow this to happen when they always remind us how bad it is for us who aren't white this country is.

Something doesn't make sense.

If this question needs asking you have not done enough traveling. There are places where it was considered ‘normal’ to encounter three stabbing victims in a week’s stay (with no ambulance in sight) and the first recommend from hotel concierge is ‘absolutely do not be out after dark’.

Then it begs the question. Why not travel to Europe? or Canada any other nation that would do this instead of the US?

I know why, no need to answer. The US is most desirable because they will be able to get a job and send money home, and most importantly they won't be deported since right now, the administration doesn't want to enforce the laws.

That's something the other 'great' nations don't have. I wish we at least have the same laws in Canada or Europe for legal migration. Turns out they do really make it hard for anyone to migrate legally, let alone illegally. That's why the US despite being such a 'horrible' country is the best nation for them.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I am kind of wondering, why is it that Black or Brown people want to illegally cross the border into a country that is systematically racist and full of white supremacist.

Don't quite understand if the same people that promulgate this, in fact allow this to happen when they always remind us how bad it is for us who aren't white this country is.

Something doesn't make sense.

If this question needs asking you have not done enough traveling. There are places where it was considered ‘normal’ to encounter three stabbing victims in a week’s stay (with no ambulance in sight) and the first recommend from hotel concierge is ‘absolutely do not be out after dark’.

Then it begs the question. Why not travel to Europe? or Canada any other nation that would do this instead of the US?

I know why, no need to answer. The US is most desirable because they will be able to get a job and send money home, and most importantly they won't be deported since right now, the administration doesn't want to enforce the laws.

That's something the other 'great' nations don't have. I wish we at least have the same laws in Canada or Europe for legal migration. Turns out they do really make it hard for anyone to migrate legally, let alone illegally. That's why the US despite being such a 'horrible' country is the best nation for them.

And as we have discussed before, that status quo is good for a lot of interests and is why no meaningful reform has happened since the 1986 debate when Reagan punted with an amnesty.

Dems benefit from the status quo because new citizens and children of immigrants often vote blue. The GOP benefits because corporate donors and SMBs in many states like the nonstop stream of cheap labor. And because of the downstream effect in meatpacking, agriculture, and construction, John Q Public benefits by not having to pay the real cost in those markets. And his kids don’t have to do work ‘beneath them’ - when’s the last time you met a suburban kid who would be willing to work in a chicken plant or get up at 5 to pick strawberries for 12 hours?

Have a look at the heavy lobbying by the Business Roundtable on modernizing the US immigration system:

https://www.businessroundtable.org/poli ... mmigration

AirWorthy99 wrote:

The US is most desirable because they will be able to get a job and send money home, and most importantly they won't be deported since right now, the administration doesn't want to enforce the laws.

Am I missing something? Are there not Border Patrol cowboys whipping the migrants at the border and sending C130s with the migrants from Texas to PAP?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The asylum argument is based on “open borders”; if one can claim asylum after passing thru three or four “safe countries”, they’re economic migrants, not a persecuted individual. With the global economic inequalities, there’s no way the developed world can allow unlimited economic immigration. Plus, those immigrants are depriving their home countries talent, risk taking, work ethic only making things worse in both the “sending”and receiving countries.

Who can actually blame them?. Their countries are rife with government corruption. They might be starving there, no job no future.

Don't think those countries have much of a negative effect, for example in this case Haiti. These people would work here and send money back home. That means that their local economies will get dollars that they need, otherwise they won't get if they stay there.

Nonetheless the realistic approach to all of this is if these countries could actually manage themselves to offer jobs and a decent life for them, but that's wishful thinking.

The problem now is that the current US administration has been all over the place on the messaging, and since he took office, those economic migrants have seen the writing on the wall and of course they will try to get in. If you are weak on immigration that's the projection you give.

I don’t blame economic migrants one bit. I blame the crooked US government that is in cahoots with business community to lower the earning power of workers, especially minority US citizens. Harris and Biden support the human trafficking, but they need to pretend to oppose the mass migration. So it becomes a “complicated” subject.

Of course in other countries, it is much simpler.

LCDFlight wrote:

Of course in other countries, it is much simpler.

Canada and Australia can only be entered by foreigners via air. That does make things much simpler. They would be in the same boat if they shared a complex border with a complex developing country where government functions poorly outside the capital city.

I’d like to heave on the UK/AUS/NZ/CA border and claim I’m seeking asylum as an American. Wouldn’t get me far.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d like to heave on the UK/AUS/NZ/CA border and claim I’m seeking asylum as an American. Wouldn’t get me far.

Nope as a Yankee have to buy your way in unless you’re an MD, AI tech or civil engineering specialist. $800K for Australia and $3 million for NZ on HNW investor visa.

If you believe in your home country, and there's lawlessness, or civil war... don't you stay and fight, and die if necessary, to bring about the country you want?? Isn't that what we did here in the US with our Civil War??
I don't recall thousands of Americans fleeing the US because there was a Civil War. They stayed, they fought, and many died. Why don't the peoples of these other countries have the same standards??

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d like to heave on the UK/AUS/NZ/CA border and claim I’m seeking asylum as an American. Wouldn’t get me far.

Nope as a Yankee have to buy your way in unless you’re an MD, AI tech or civil engineering specialist. $800K for Australia and $3 million for NZ on HNW investor visa.

And they probably wouldn't send you on your way back to America with $100 in your pocket.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

If you believe in your home country, and there's lawlessness, or civil war... don't you stay and fight, and die if necessary, to bring about the country you want?? Isn't that what we did here in the US with our Civil War??
I don't recall thousands of Americans fleeing the US because there was a Civil War. They stayed, they fought, and many died. Why don't the peoples of these other countries have the same standards??

You don't seem to be very familiar with the last 60 years' history in Latin America. People did fight for their country, and try to topple governments they didn't like in several places - Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. This of course didn't always go as hoped, with extremist left and right groups using violence to achieve their aims. The US invariably backed governments that were unfriendly to these revolutionary movements, and looked the other way as armed forces killed civilians. The CIA then used several of these countries for gun-running operations to back counterrevolutionary groups. Those guns were run by drug traffickers, which contributed to their expansion and 30+ years of on/off warfare in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, and Panama. When backing counterrevolutionary groups didn't work CIA simply installed dictators via coup d'état.

In aftermath of the above, the present situation is that traffickers and dictatorships have consolidated all the power and financial clout in these countries. New armed revolutions by the population are a completely impractical proposition. Expecting them to do so is a pretty mindblowing statement.

Oh and the ballot box doesn't work either. Nearly 100 political candidates were assassinated in this spring's Mexican election season alone, most of them for proposing to do something about crime and corruption:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po ... 558598002/

But sure, the people should just rise up and fight for their country. What would you suggest the people do when they can't arm themselves and anti-corruption candidates are being killed?

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

If you believe in your home country, and there's lawlessness, or civil war... don't you stay and fight, and die if necessary, to bring about the country you want?? Isn't that what we did here in the US with our Civil War??
I don't recall thousands of Americans fleeing the US because there was a Civil War. They stayed, they fought, and many died. Why don't the peoples of these other countries have the same standards??

You don't seem to be very familiar with the last 60 years' history in Latin America. People did fight for their country, and try to topple governments they didn't like in several places - Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. This of course didn't always go as hoped, with extremist left and right groups using violence to achieve their aims. The US invariably backed governments that were unfriendly to these revolutionary movements, and looked the other way as armed forces killed civilians. The CIA then used several of these countries for gun-running operations to back counterrevolutionary groups. Those guns were run by drug traffickers, which contributed to their expansion and 30+ years of on/off warfare in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, and Panama. When backing counterrevolutionary groups didn't work CIA simply installed dictators via coup d'état.

In aftermath of the above, the present situation is that traffickers and dictatorships have consolidated all the power and financial clout in these countries. New armed revolutions by the population are a completely impractical proposition. Expecting them to do so is a pretty mindblowing statement.

Oh and the ballot box doesn't work either. Nearly 100 political candidates were assassinated in this spring's Mexican election season alone, most of them for proposing to do something about crime and corruption:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po ... 558598002/

But sure, the people should just rise up and fight for their country. What would you suggest the people do when they can't arm themselves and anti-corruption candidates are being killed?

Okay, but getting to the story at hand, the Hatians, who have messed up their country without America being the bad guy.
The US history in other countires is much darker. I give you that.

This AP article goes into some depth about how the Haitians got to South America and into other countries, living and working, for many years, before finally massing at the Texas border.

https://apnews.com/article/technology-m ... d2d800f3ce

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

If you believe in your home country, and there's lawlessness, or civil war... don't you stay and fight, and die if necessary, to bring about the country you want?? Isn't that what we did here in the US with our Civil War??
I don't recall thousands of Americans fleeing the US because there was a Civil War. They stayed, they fought, and many died. Why don't the peoples of these other countries have the same standards??

You don't seem to be very familiar with the last 60 years' history in Latin America. People did fight for their country, and try to topple governments they didn't like in several places - Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. This of course didn't always go as hoped, with extremist left and right groups using violence to achieve their aims. The US invariably backed governments that were unfriendly to these revolutionary movements, and looked the other way as armed forces killed civilians. The CIA then used several of these countries for gun-running operations to back counterrevolutionary groups. Those guns were run by drug traffickers, which contributed to their expansion and 30+ years of on/off warfare in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, and Panama. When backing counterrevolutionary groups didn't work CIA simply installed dictators via coup d'état.

In aftermath of the above, the present situation is that traffickers and dictatorships have consolidated all the power and financial clout in these countries. New armed revolutions by the population are a completely impractical proposition. Expecting them to do so is a pretty mindblowing statement.

Oh and the ballot box doesn't work either. Nearly 100 political candidates were assassinated in this spring's Mexican election season alone, most of them for proposing to do something about crime and corruption:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po ... 558598002/

But sure, the people should just rise up and fight for their country. What would you suggest the people do when they can't arm themselves and anti-corruption candidates are being killed?

Okay, but getting to the story at hand, the Hatians, who have messed up their country without America being the bad guy.
The US history in other countires is much darker. I give you that.

This AP article goes into some depth about how the Haitians got to South America and into other countries, living and working, for many years, before finally massing at the Texas border.

https://apnews.com/article/technology-m ... d2d800f3ce

The history of Haiti's last 100 years is no less dark, just without all the CIA interventions. Because other resources were plundered under French colonialism, the two main keys to power in Haiti are controlling tobacco or drug trafficking - neither of which the 'people' can take control of realistically.

Several times Haitians have tried to rise up and establish new governments, but these new governments often crush dissent with summary executions and/or eliminate chosen leaders via military coup. So again - I ask how are the impoverished to arm themselves and rise up against such dictatorships when they have virtually no power?

The point is, whether it's Haiti or somewhere in Latin America other than Belize or Costa Rica (notice there are never migrants from there?), the primary driver of chaos that drives people to move is instability and the violence and lack of agency for the people that comes with it. It's nobody's fault they were born in a shithole. There are possible solutions to turn these countries around, but they would break two major conventions set since WW2: 1. sovereignty and 2. treating developing countries as political footballs for superpowers

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Okay, but getting to the story at hand, the Hatians, who have messed up their country without America being the bad guy.

America's longest serving ally the French is the major player responsible for Haiti being where it is today, over a century after Haiti became the first independent black ruled nation in the western world, France continued to demand and receive payment for that independence, once again America via Bill Clinton did have something to do with France finally deciding they had received enough, somehow I think if that major earth quake had not happened and the world gone into Haiti and seen the conditions, payments would still be ongoing.

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

You don't seem to be very familiar with the last 60 years' history in Latin America. People did fight for their country, and try to topple governments they didn't like in several places - Chile, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. This of course didn't always go as hoped, with extremist left and right groups using violence to achieve their aims. The US invariably backed governments that were unfriendly to these revolutionary movements, and looked the other way as armed forces killed civilians. The CIA then used several of these countries for gun-running operations to back counterrevolutionary groups. Those guns were run by drug traffickers, which contributed to their expansion and 30+ years of on/off warfare in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, and Panama. When backing counterrevolutionary groups didn't work CIA simply installed dictators via coup d'état.

In aftermath of the above, the present situation is that traffickers and dictatorships have consolidated all the power and financial clout in these countries. New armed revolutions by the population are a completely impractical proposition. Expecting them to do so is a pretty mindblowing statement.

Oh and the ballot box doesn't work either. Nearly 100 political candidates were assassinated in this spring's Mexican election season alone, most of them for proposing to do something about crime and corruption:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po ... 558598002/

But sure, the people should just rise up and fight for their country. What would you suggest the people do when they can't arm themselves and anti-corruption candidates are being killed?

Okay, but getting to the story at hand, the Hatians, who have messed up their country without America being the bad guy.
The US history in other countires is much darker. I give you that.

This AP article goes into some depth about how the Haitians got to South America and into other countries, living and working, for many years, before finally massing at the Texas border.

https://apnews.com/article/technology-m ... d2d800f3ce

The history of Haiti's last 100 years is no less dark, just without all the CIA interventions. Because other resources were plundered under French colonialism, the two main keys to power in Haiti are controlling tobacco or drug trafficking - neither of which the 'people' can take control of realistically.

Several times Haitians have tried to rise up and establish new governments, but these new governments often crush dissent with summary executions and/or eliminate chosen leaders via military coup. So again - I ask how are the impoverished to arm themselves and rise up against such dictatorships when they have virtually no power?

The point is, whether it's Haiti or somewhere in Latin America other than Belize or Costa Rica (notice there are never migrants from there?), the primary driver of chaos that drives people to move is instability and the violence and lack of agency for the people that comes with it. It's nobody's fault they were born in a shithole. There are possible solutions to turn these countries around, but they would break two major conventions set since WW2: 1. sovereignty and 2. treating developing countries as political footballs for superpowers

Be careful... Last time someone called Haiti a shithole, there was a few weeks of nonstop coverage about how awesome it is, Conan went and broadcasted from there, etc.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Okay, but getting to the story at hand, the Hatians, who have messed up their country without America being the bad guy.
The US history in other countires is much darker. I give you that.

This AP article goes into some depth about how the Haitians got to South America and into other countries, living and working, for many years, before finally massing at the Texas border.

https://apnews.com/article/technology-m ... d2d800f3ce

The history of Haiti's last 100 years is no less dark, just without all the CIA interventions. Because other resources were plundered under French colonialism, the two main keys to power in Haiti are controlling tobacco or drug trafficking - neither of which the 'people' can take control of realistically.

Several times Haitians have tried to rise up and establish new governments, but these new governments often crush dissent with summary executions and/or eliminate chosen leaders via military coup. So again - I ask how are the impoverished to arm themselves and rise up against such dictatorships when they have virtually no power?

The point is, whether it's Haiti or somewhere in Latin America other than Belize or Costa Rica (notice there are never migrants from there?), the primary driver of chaos that drives people to move is instability and the violence and lack of agency for the people that comes with it. It's nobody's fault they were born in a shithole. There are possible solutions to turn these countries around, but they would break two major conventions set since WW2: 1. sovereignty and 2. treating developing countries as political footballs for superpowers

Be careful... Last time someone called Haiti a shithole, there was a few weeks of nonstop coverage about how awesome it is, Conan went and broadcasted from there, etc.

I was using it satirically, not referring to a particular country. It's a very serious matter that people get to a point they need to leave what they know as home - hard to even think about.

Senator Mitt Romney on Twitter

https://twitter.com/SenatorRomney/statu ... 28486?s=20

The President's "human infrastructure bill" would allow illegal immigrants to get $300/month, per child, by obtaining a tax ID number once they're here. It's outrageous. I can't think of a more enticing reason to enter our country illegally–at the expense of American tax payers.

The Administration's plan to focus solely on the "root causes" of illegal immigration is simply not feasible. We can't eradicate poverty and crime here at home, let alone around the world.

So much for all of the talk about how illegal immigrants that manage to make it into the US get no welfare benefits.

The question of whether it is humane or not, is not the question.
The question is where will it all end?? The US cannot be the welfare backstop for all of the developing nations.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The question is where will it all end?? The US cannot be the welfare backstop for all of the developing nations.

No we can't - but a lot of conversations that need to be had are not being had. Only the emotional stuff surfaces on both left and right - left (but they are PEOPLE) and right (BUT SAFETY).

In another thread on this topic I pointed out from the feds' point of view they simply are understaffed and outgunned, regardless of who is in the WH. The number of apprehensions are actually way down in recent years compared to the 1980s when Central America was in turmoil, but tactics have changed and resources are not well matched to these periodic surges.



Source: The Economist

The recruiting crisis at CBP is well documented and nobody has solved it in recent years:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/ ... is-1157171

And an OIG report found in 2019 that despite being ordered by Congress in 2011, CBP management has failed to put together both the tracking and staffing models needed to even evaluate what they actually need:

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/f ... -Feb19.pdf

A hot mess, I'd say.

Officials: Many migrants from border camp staying in US

https://apnews.com/article/immigration- ... 9594df3ec6

"Many have been released with notices to appear at an immigration office within 60 days."

Ha Ha Ha Ha --- Like this is going to happen!!

There would not have been a decades long humanitarian border crisis had the US not sold boatloads of weapons the Central and South American guerillas and fascist governments. The same can be said of Mediterranean refugees from Africa.
Sorry people, but you reap what you sow.

Dieuwer wrote:

There would not have been a decades long humanitarian border crisis had the US not sold boatloads of weapons the Central and South American guerillas and fascist governments. The same can be said of Mediterranean refugees from Africa.
Sorry people, but you reap what you sow.

So, that's it? Open borders, right? It's like a sick Ayn Rand hard libertarian fantasy. By saying there was an historical injustice, we can justify doing anything today, for any length of time. It is an open ended justification.

Not saying you are wrong. Maybe you are right. That is for history and voters to decide.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Officials: Many migrants from border camp staying in US

https://apnews.com/article/immigration- ... 9594df3ec6

"Many have been released with notices to appear at an immigration office within 60 days."

Ha Ha Ha Ha --- Like this is going to happen!!

This is SOP with asylum applicants. Remember: cases can NOT be processed by US consulates abroad by law. Also there is a conflation of asylum applicants with other border crossers who have no intention of engaging with authorities or using the system. These applicants have met with CBP and got paperwork started.

Aaron747 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Officials: Many migrants from border camp staying in US

https://apnews.com/article/immigration- ... 9594df3ec6

"Many have been released with notices to appear at an immigration office within 60 days."

Ha Ha Ha Ha --- Like this is going to happen!!

This is SOP with asylum applicants. Remember: cases can NOT be processed by US consulates abroad by law. Also there is a conflation of asylum applicants with other border crossers who have no intention of engaging with authorities or using the system. These applicants have met with CBP and got paperwork started.

It is common knowledge how to take advantage of the US immigration system, claim asylum. The only reason they are released is the broken immigration system; there are too many people to hold in detention facilities and the length of time to receive an immigration hearing can be over five years. The preferred SOP is not to just release asylum applicants (or other persons charged with illegal entry), but the immigration system is so overwhelmed, there isn't any other choice. At least 85% of the asylum cases will be tossed, but a vast majority will not show for their court dates. Remember, being poor is not a reason for asylum, but is you say the magic words you will be allowed to stay while your case progresses. These people are given a Notice to Appear or a Notice to Report then they get a plane or bus ticket from Uncle Sam. The Notice to Appear sets a place, date, and time of where they are to appear, a Notice to Report is simply asking them to report to the nearest ICE office within 60 days. Most people wont show back up. I am all for legal immigration, and we definitely need some reform, but we need to deal with the wide open borders before we can have any real change.

Not necessarily related to this, but this interesting video explores immigration and poverty:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6tSqGCfoCI

bpatus297 wrote:

At least 85% of the asylum cases will be tossed, but a vast majority will not show for their court dates.

Care to share where you are getting this data? The FY2019 approval rate, most recent I could find, was 6.6%, not the 15% you indicate.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article ... tates-2021

And it seems an empirical review of government data shows 83% of asylum seekers in non-detained cases since 2008 have shown up for their hearings.

"The empirical research presented in this report debunks the myth that immigrants don’t show up for court," said Ingrid Eagly, professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, and one of the report's authors. "Relying on the government’s own immigration court data, co-author Steven Shafer and I find that, since 2008, 83 percent of all immigrants in non-detained deportation cases have attended all of their court hearings. In addition, over the 11 years of our study, 96 percent individuals represented by an attorney attended all of their court hearings."

They also found that around 15 percent of those ordered deported because they did not appear in court were able to successfully reopen their cases, and had their removal orders rescinded. In some years, as many as one-fifth of these cases were overturned by immigration judges.

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/rep ... ata-shows/

But yes a lack of a capacity impacts the immigration system terribly in general, as I noted earlier. Even for family visa applications, where one wants to bring their properly-vetted foreign spouse to the US, the process can be 2.5 years plus. It's pretty ridiculous. Congress has had many chances to reform the system, but nothing gets done. As I noted earlier, the OIG found in 2019 that CBP had failed to implement a proper tracking system for their staffing needs since 2011. That's also ridiculous.

And if you have issues with the asylum laws, Bush 43's presidency had nearly a four year period from 2003 to 2007 when they held both houses of Congress. Even so, the asylum laws were not updated to fit the modern situation.

We're not the world's policeman, and we're not the world's tit. Most of the Haitians I know work like there is no tomorrow; but their homeland is rife with corruption. Close the borders and sort our own problems.

extender wrote:

We're not the world's policeman, and we're not the world's tit. Most of the Haitians I know work like there is no tomorrow; but their homeland is rife with corruption. Close the borders and sort our own problems.

Never gonna happen until the public pressures key industries to stop driving cheap labor demand. That's why the GOP has not come to the table on legit reform since 1986. Lobbyists win.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

At least 85% of the asylum cases will be tossed, but a vast majority will not show for their court dates.

Care to share where you are getting this data? The FY2019 approval rate, most recent I could find, was 6.6%, not the 15% you indicate.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article ... tates-2021

And it seems an empirical review of government data shows 83% of asylum seekers in non-detained cases since 2008 have shown up for their hearings.

"The empirical research presented in this report debunks the myth that immigrants don’t show up for court," said Ingrid Eagly, professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, and one of the report's authors. "Relying on the government’s own immigration court data, co-author Steven Shafer and I find that, since 2008, 83 percent of all immigrants in non-detained deportation cases have attended all of their court hearings. In addition, over the 11 years of our study, 96 percent individuals represented by an attorney attended all of their court hearings."

They also found that around 15 percent of those ordered deported because they did not appear in court were able to successfully reopen their cases, and had their removal orders rescinded. In some years, as many as one-fifth of these cases were overturned by immigration judges.

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/rep ... ata-shows/

But yes a lack of a capacity impacts the immigration system terribly in general, as I noted earlier. Even for family visa applications, where one wants to bring their properly-vetted foreign spouse to the US, the process can be 2.5 years plus. It's pretty ridiculous. Congress has had many chances to reform the system, but nothing gets done. As I noted earlier, the OIG found in 2019 that CBP had failed to implement a proper tracking system for their staffing needs since 2011. That's also ridiculous.

And if you have issues with the asylum laws, Bush 43's presidency had nearly a four year period from 2003 to 2007 when they held both houses of Congress. Even so, the asylum laws were not updated to fit the modern situation.

Part of the problem with trying to discuss immigration in the US is the difficulty of obtaining official statistics. The 15% was a general number and I erred on the high side. Asylum can be "approved" by different agencies at different levels. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Officers can grant asylum as well as Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) judges. USCIS is under DHS and EOIR is under DOJ, so you have to read the fine print to understand what you are reading. It is really convoluted and confusing. I think its done like that on purpose so both sides of the aisle can manipulate the numbers to match what they want to say.

As for the number of people who show up for court, that is also convoluted and confusing. First, a very large portion of illegal aliens are given a Notice to Report or released on their own recognizance (OR). They have never actually been given a court date, so they are not necessarily counted as Failure to Appears. As an interesting side note, illegal aliens are supposed to show a verifiable residence in the US to get an OR bond. Most illegal aliens don't or wont (other illegal aliens at that address etc.) give an address, but get an OR anyway. Second, most immigration hearings are continued numerous times if the defendant doesn't show up. Since there are about 500 immigration judges in the US and over 1.3M pending cases, the continuances can be years between hearings. This also can be used to manipulate the numbers. Until the case is finally adjudicated, its not necessarily counted as a failure to appear. Again, the cases are handled through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is part of DHS, but the EOIR courts are in DOJ. Most departments don't play nice together, especially with statistics.

Neither side of the political aisle really wants to stop illegal immigration. They each use it to rile up their base.

This crisis is another self inflicted crisis by this administration. They don't seem to catch a break, and it seems that now, for the first time in almost 5 years, the crisis going on are real, and not media manufactured. Add this to the AFG debacle, inflation, crime surging, crisis with France etc.

It seems to me, the Democrat party is only good being the opposition party. They can't govern. This border crisis is living proof, you can't be in favor of not enforcing our immigration laws, and be in charge of enforcing them at the same time. This is the result.

bpatus297 wrote:

Part of the problem with trying to discuss immigration in the US is the difficulty of obtaining official statistics. The 15% was a general number and I erred on the high side. Asylum can be "approved" by different agencies at different levels. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Officers can grant asylum as well as Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) judges. USCIS is under DHS and EOIR is under DOJ, so you have to read the fine print to understand what you are reading. It is really convoluted and confusing. I think its done like that on purpose so both sides of the aisle can manipulate the numbers to match what they want to say.

I think it's more likely it's a matter of too many agencies wearing the same hat and sometimes acting at cross-purposes. Federal reporting standards are rigorous and there are hundreds of bureaucrats who do nothing else all day but compile data and write reports. They are not allowed to fudge stuff for the benefit of Congress, and if they do, that's what IG offices and other auditors like CBO are for. But yes, I'll grant the stats themselves are highly nuanced and laypersons cannot easily find what they may want to see. It helps to know the lay of the land, so to speak.

bpatus297 wrote:

As for the number of people who show up for court, that is also convoluted and confusing. First, a very large portion of illegal aliens are given a Notice to Report or released on their own recognizance (OR). They have never actually been given a court date, so they are not necessarily counted as Failure to Appears. As an interesting side note, illegal aliens are supposed to show a verifiable residence in the US to get an OR bond. Most illegal aliens don't or wont (other illegal aliens at that address etc.) give an address, but get an OR anyway. Second, most immigration hearings are continued numerous times if the defendant doesn't show up. Since there are about 500 immigration judges in the US and over 1.3M pending cases, the continuances can be years between hearings. This also can be used to manipulate the numbers. Until the case is finally adjudicated, its not necessarily counted as a failure to appear. Again, the cases are handled through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is part of DHS, but the EOIR courts are in DOJ. Most departments don't play nice together, especially with statistics.

Okay, but now you're talking about illegal aliens, not asylum filers. Again, the two are treated separately by DHS and can't be conflated. For the sake of accuracy...

bpatus297 wrote:

Neither side of the political aisle really wants to stop illegal immigration. They each use it to rile up their base.

Now there's a 100% accurate statement.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Part of the problem with trying to discuss immigration in the US is the difficulty of obtaining official statistics. The 15% was a general number and I erred on the high side. Asylum can be "approved" by different agencies at different levels. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Officers can grant asylum as well as Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) judges. USCIS is under DHS and EOIR is under DOJ, so you have to read the fine print to understand what you are reading. It is really convoluted and confusing. I think its done like that on purpose so both sides of the aisle can manipulate the numbers to match what they want to say.

I think it's more likely it's a matter of too many agencies wearing the same hat and sometimes acting at cross-purposes. Federal reporting standards are rigorous and there are hundreds of bureaucrats who do nothing else all day but compile data and write reports. They are not allowed to fudge stuff for the benefit of Congress, and if they do, that's what IG offices and other auditors like CBO are for. But yes, I'll grant the stats themselves are highly nuanced and laypersons cannot easily find what they may want to see. It helps to know the lay of the land, so to speak.

bpatus297 wrote:

As for the number of people who show up for court, that is also convoluted and confusing. First, a very large portion of illegal aliens are given a Notice to Report or released on their own recognizance (OR). They have never actually been given a court date, so they are not necessarily counted as Failure to Appears. As an interesting side note, illegal aliens are supposed to show a verifiable residence in the US to get an OR bond. Most illegal aliens don't or wont (other illegal aliens at that address etc.) give an address, but get an OR anyway. Second, most immigration hearings are continued numerous times if the defendant doesn't show up. Since there are about 500 immigration judges in the US and over 1.3M pending cases, the continuances can be years between hearings. This also can be used to manipulate the numbers. Until the case is finally adjudicated, its not necessarily counted as a failure to appear. Again, the cases are handled through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is part of DHS, but the EOIR courts are in DOJ. Most departments don't play nice together, especially with statistics.

Okay, but now you're talking about illegal aliens, not asylum filers. Again, the two are treated separately by DHS and can't be conflated. For the sake of accuracy...

bpatus297 wrote:

Neither side of the political aisle really wants to stop illegal immigration. They each use it to rile up their base.

Now there's a 100% accurate statement.

If an asylum seeker reports to a Port of Entry, they are simply an asylum seeker. If a person enters the US illegally, is apprehended, and then asks for asylum, they are counted as an illegal alien and asylum seekers They are charged with 8 USC 1182, 1325, or 1326 as appropriate, then referred for a creditable fear interview. These aliens are counted as both illegal aliens and asylum seekers until their case is adjudicated. Most asylum seekers cross the border illegally as this bypasses the "line".

bpatus297 wrote:

Most asylum seekers cross the border illegally as this bypasses the "line".

This, again, comes down to a flaw in the law as foreign consular services are not empowered to process asylum claims, only refugees.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Part of the problem with trying to discuss immigration in the US is the difficulty of obtaining official statistics. The 15% was a general number and I erred on the high side. Asylum can be "approved" by different agencies at different levels. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Asylum Officers can grant asylum as well as Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) judges. USCIS is under DHS and EOIR is under DOJ, so you have to read the fine print to understand what you are reading. It is really convoluted and confusing. I think its done like that on purpose so both sides of the aisle can manipulate the numbers to match what they want to say.

I think it's more likely it's a matter of too many agencies wearing the same hat and sometimes acting at cross-purposes. Federal reporting standards are rigorous and there are hundreds of bureaucrats who do nothing else all day but compile data and write reports. They are not allowed to fudge stuff for the benefit of Congress, and if they do, that's what IG offices and other auditors like CBO are for. But yes, I'll grant the stats themselves are highly nuanced and laypersons cannot easily find what they may want to see. It helps to know the lay of the land, so to speak.

bpatus297 wrote:

As for the number of people who show up for court, that is also convoluted and confusing. First, a very large portion of illegal aliens are given a Notice to Report or released on their own recognizance (OR). They have never actually been given a court date, so they are not necessarily counted as Failure to Appears. As an interesting side note, illegal aliens are supposed to show a verifiable residence in the US to get an OR bond. Most illegal aliens don't or wont (other illegal aliens at that address etc.) give an address, but get an OR anyway. Second, most immigration hearings are continued numerous times if the defendant doesn't show up. Since there are about 500 immigration judges in the US and over 1.3M pending cases, the continuances can be years between hearings. This also can be used to manipulate the numbers. Until the case is finally adjudicated, its not necessarily counted as a failure to appear. Again, the cases are handled through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is part of DHS, but the EOIR courts are in DOJ. Most departments don't play nice together, especially with statistics.

Okay, but now you're talking about illegal aliens, not asylum filers. Again, the two are treated separately by DHS and can't be conflated. For the sake of accuracy...

bpatus297 wrote:

Neither side of the political aisle really wants to stop illegal immigration. They each use it to rile up their base.

Now there's a 100% accurate statement.

If an asylum seeker reports to a Port of Entry, they are simply an asylum seeker. If a person enters the US illegally, is apprehended, and then asks for asylum, they are counted as an illegal alien and asylum seekers They are charged with 8 USC 1182, 1325, or 1326 as appropriate, then referred for a creditable fear interview. These aliens are counted as both illegal aliens and asylum seekers until their case is adjudicated. Most asylum seekers cross the border illegally as this bypasses the "line".

What "line"? many illegals go straight to the fields. They leave the fighting, death and instability of their country to work where Americans won't and for a handsome salary, relatively speaking. For some reason, we are also supposed to be outraged over the people who are following the law, waiting in line (sometimes for years) but they are also to be hated? There are flaws in the American immigration system. They were pointed out under the previous administration. And nothing was done about any of it then. So, they whine and complain now that nothing is being done. They had four years to "fix" the system and did nothing and now they want something done because of failure?

nope.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

If this question needs asking you have not done enough traveling. There are places where it was considered ‘normal’ to encounter three stabbing victims in a week’s stay (with no ambulance in sight) and the first recommend from hotel concierge is ‘absolutely do not be out after dark’.

Then it begs the question. Why not travel to Europe? or Canada any other nation that would do this instead of the US?
I know why, no need to answer. The US is most desirable because they will be able to get a job and send money home, and most importantly they won't be deported since right now, the administration doesn't want to enforce the laws.
That's something the other 'great' nations don't have. I wish we at least have the same laws in Canada or Europe for legal migration. Turns out they do really make it hard for anyone to migrate legally, let alone illegally. That's why the US despite being such a 'horrible' country is the best nation for them.

And as we have discussed before, that status quo is good for a lot of interests and is why no meaningful reform has happened since the 1986 debate when Reagan punted with an amnesty.
Dems benefit from the status quo because new citizens and children of immigrants often vote blue. The GOP benefits because corporate donors and SMBs in many states like the nonstop stream of cheap labor. And because of the downstream effect in meatpacking, agriculture, and construction, John Q Public benefits by not having to pay the real cost in those markets. And his kids don’t have to do work ‘beneath them’ - when’s the last time you met a suburban kid who would be willing to work in a chicken plant or get up at 5 to pick strawberries for 12 hours?
Have a look at the heavy lobbying by the Business Roundtable on modernizing the US immigration system:
https://www.businessroundtable.org/poli ... mmigration

There are also other factors driving immigration to the USA. Centuries of economic and political colonialism by Europe and the USA that limited jobs by local, exploited millions at cheap pay. USA policy in the Caribbean, Mexico, Central and South America to protect American corporate interests, prevent Communism, but meant supporting authoritarian, undemocratic but capitalist leaders, even to the point of assassinating elected leaders and of opposition parties, keeping power concentrated in a few families who got rich. Internal ethnic discrimination, strife and conflicts. Obscene levels of crime especially due to the drug trade and gangs controlling much of countries to have some economic survival. Consolidation of family farms into parts of corporate controlled ones. Climate change which had destroyed farms, lack of drinkable water, or just too hot to live there anymore. Loss of mineral wealth as over removed, or found cheaper and easier elsewhere. Not enough income for governments due to massive tax evasion and too many poor people who cannot afford to pay.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I think it's more likely it's a matter of too many agencies wearing the same hat and sometimes acting at cross-purposes. Federal reporting standards are rigorous and there are hundreds of bureaucrats who do nothing else all day but compile data and write reports. They are not allowed to fudge stuff for the benefit of Congress, and if they do, that's what IG offices and other auditors like CBO are for. But yes, I'll grant the stats themselves are highly nuanced and laypersons cannot easily find what they may want to see. It helps to know the lay of the land, so to speak.



Okay, but now you're talking about illegal aliens, not asylum filers. Again, the two are treated separately by DHS and can't be conflated. For the sake of accuracy...



Now there's a 100% accurate statement.

If an asylum seeker reports to a Port of Entry, they are simply an asylum seeker. If a person enters the US illegally, is apprehended, and then asks for asylum, they are counted as an illegal alien and asylum seekers They are charged with 8 USC 1182, 1325, or 1326 as appropriate, then referred for a creditable fear interview. These aliens are counted as both illegal aliens and asylum seekers until their case is adjudicated. Most asylum seekers cross the border illegally as this bypasses the "line".

What "line"? many illegals go straight to the fields. They leave the fighting, death and instability of their country to work where Americans won't and for a handsome salary, relatively speaking. For some reason, we are also supposed to be outraged over the people who are following the law, waiting in line (sometimes for years) but they are also to be hated? There are flaws in the American immigration system. They were pointed out under the previous administration. And nothing was done about any of it then. So, they whine and complain now that nothing is being done. They had four years to "fix" the system and did nothing and now they want something done because of failure?

nope.

You really don't know much about the American Immigration system, do you?