phatfarmlines wrote:

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

I can see you don’t know anything about controlling a horse. They weren’t whipping the migrants.

DL717 wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

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

I can see you don’t know anything about controlling a horse. They weren’t whipping the migrants.

Here is another angle, tells a different story.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/ ... /100484690

bpatus297 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

Am I missing something? Are there not Border Patrol cowboys whipping the migrants at the border

I can see you don’t know anything about controlling a horse. They weren’t whipping the migrants.

Here is another angle, tells a different story.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/ ... /100484690

Nope. It does not. That’s a common tactic using the reigns to control a distracted horse. But you’d have to know how to ride a horse to be familiar with it. But hey, can’t expect city dwellers looking for something to have a beef about to understand it.

Maybe you prefer the rider allow the horse to trample the person on the ground.

Amazed about the outrage from a picture.

But no outrage to seeing thousands of people living under horrible conditions under a bridge. Seems like the non-concern about homelessness in California and other places. But you see a guy with a horse and twist the picture to make it about your narrative. Then all the focus goes on to that.

Thousands living badly under a bridge, no issue. A guy with a horse chasing an illegal immigrant. Yes issue.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Amazed about the outrage from a picture.

But no outrage to seeing thousands of people living under horrible conditions under a bridge. Seems like the non-concern about homelessness in California and other places. But you see a guy with a horse and twist the picture to make it about your narrative. Then all the focus goes on to that.

Thousands living badly under a bridge, no issue. A guy with a horse chasing an illegal immigrant. Yes issue.

So typical. They don’t even know what a reign is.

DL717 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

I can see you don’t know anything about controlling a horse. They weren’t whipping the migrants.

Here is another angle, tells a different story.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/ ... /100484690

Nope. It does not. That’s a common tactic to control a distracted horse. But you’d have to know how to ride a horse to be familiar with it.

I am intimatley familiar with riding horses, nothing to see here other that Border Patrol Agents enforcing laws enacted by Congress.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Amazed about the outrage from a picture.

But no outrage to seeing thousands of people living under horrible conditions under a bridge. Seems like the non-concern about homelessness in California and other places. But you see a guy with a horse and twist the picture to make it about your narrative. Then all the focus goes on to that.

Thousands living badly under a bridge, no issue. A guy with a horse chasing an illegal immigrant. Yes issue.

We haven't seen AOC visit any detention centers and cry for photo ops since Trump left office. Strange.

bpatus297 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Here is another angle, tells a different story.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/ ... /100484690

Nope. It does not. That’s a common tactic to control a distracted horse. But you’d have to know how to ride a horse to be familiar with it.

I am intimatley familiar with riding horses, nothing to see here other that Border Patrol Agents enforcing laws enacted by Congress.

Got ya.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

But no outrage to seeing thousands of people living under horrible conditions under a bridge. Seems like the non-concern about homelessness in California and other places. But you see a guy with a horse and twist the picture to make it about your narrative. Then all the focus goes on to that.

I just don't understand the purpose of posting outright misinformation. Where do you get this information??

There is outrage throughout the Dems' progressive wing - lots of anger at Biden for both the bridge conditions and the deportations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2 ... ab514e1935

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politi ... 479401.php

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/2 ... um-seekers

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politi ... 67293.html

And 'non-concern' about homelessness in CA? Excuse me? There are THOUSANDS of organizations working daily in this state to help them.

https://greatnonprofits.org/city/los-an ... ction:desc

https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/c ... g-programs

bpatus297 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Amazed about the outrage from a picture.

But no outrage to seeing thousands of people living under horrible conditions under a bridge. Seems like the non-concern about homelessness in California and other places. But you see a guy with a horse and twist the picture to make it about your narrative. Then all the focus goes on to that.

Thousands living badly under a bridge, no issue. A guy with a horse chasing an illegal immigrant. Yes issue.

We haven't seen AOC visit any detention centers and cry for photo ops since Trump left office. Strange.

Too busy crying about voting “present”.

DL717 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Amazed about the outrage from a picture.

But no outrage to seeing thousands of people living under horrible conditions under a bridge. Seems like the non-concern about homelessness in California and other places. But you see a guy with a horse and twist the picture to make it about your narrative. Then all the focus goes on to that.

Thousands living badly under a bridge, no issue. A guy with a horse chasing an illegal immigrant. Yes issue.

So typical. They don’t even know what a reign is.

I think you mean 'rein' if we're talking about horses and not dictators

bpatus297 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Amazed about the outrage from a picture.

But no outrage to seeing thousands of people living under horrible conditions under a bridge. Seems like the non-concern about homelessness in California and other places. But you see a guy with a horse and twist the picture to make it about your narrative. Then all the focus goes on to that.

Thousands living badly under a bridge, no issue. A guy with a horse chasing an illegal immigrant. Yes issue.

We haven't seen AOC visit any detention centers and cry for photo ops since Trump left office. Strange.

She's busy criticizing Biden for (lawful) deportations and using Gitmo:

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1440796458270134275?s=20

Two points from me:
One, the "picture crisis" is not and should not be. Borders do need enforcement. Enforcement is just that and force is used and needed at times. The picture captures just one moment of that and there are thousands of migrants and there are not thousands of pictures like this.

Two, the USA need to increase legal immigration but can't. I would say likely double what it currently is but would really need to look more into it to be sure. And in addition to that, the US needs to (re)create a legal process for migrant labor to come, do the work the migrants wish to do, and allow them to return home as needed and then return again to work. Legally.

Tugg

Aaron747 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Amazed about the outrage from a picture.

But no outrage to seeing thousands of people living under horrible conditions under a bridge. Seems like the non-concern about homelessness in California and other places. But you see a guy with a horse and twist the picture to make it about your narrative. Then all the focus goes on to that.

Thousands living badly under a bridge, no issue. A guy with a horse chasing an illegal immigrant. Yes issue.

So typical. They don’t even know what a reign is.

I think you mean 'rein' if we're talking about horses and not dictators

Ask Apple.

Tugger wrote:

Borders do need enforcement. Enforcement is just that and force is used and needed at times. The picture captures just one moment of that and there are thousands of migrants and there are not thousands of pictures like this.

Two, the USA need to increase legal immigration but can't....And in addition to that, the US needs to (re)create a legal process for migrant labor to come, do the work the migrants wish to do, and allow them to return home as needed and then return again to work. Legally.

Tugg

Fully agree with all the highlighted portions. By my cursory look at their organization, CBP needs to hire at least 5,000 more agents to be remotely effective, immigration courts need to double the number of judges, and the State Department needs to have family visas processed at overseas embassies again. Sending all the documentation to one processing center in the US is ridiculous and slows everything down - the slower the process is, the longer and more resource-depleted the queue gets.

Tugger wrote:

Two points from me:
One, the "picture crisis" is not and should not be. Borders do need enforcement. Enforcement is just that and force is used and needed at times. The picture captures just one moment of that and there are thousands of migrants and there are not thousands of pictures like this.

Two, the USA need to increase legal immigration but can't. I would say likely double what it currently is but would really need to look more into it to be sure. And in addition to that, the US needs to (re)create a legal process for migrant labor to come, do the work the migrants wish to do, and allow them to return home as needed and then return again to work. Legally.

Tugg

I don’t know that increasing quotas will do anything regarding the present problem, even though they should be making it easier for legal immigration. We have friends that have been patiently waiting to get citizenship for nearly a decade. The current barrage of illegal entry will continue with or without it.

DL717 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Two points from me:
One, the "picture crisis" is not and should not be. Borders do need enforcement. Enforcement is just that and force is used and needed at times. The picture captures just one moment of that and there are thousands of migrants and there are not thousands of pictures like this.

Two, the USA need to increase legal immigration but can't. I would say likely double what it currently is but would really need to look more into it to be sure. And in addition to that, the US needs to (re)create a legal process for migrant labor to come, do the work the migrants wish to do, and allow them to return home as needed and then return again to work. Legally.

Tugg

I don’t know that increasing quotas will do anything regarding the present problem, even though they should be making it easier for legal immigration. We have friends that have been patiently waiting to get citizenship for nearly a decade. The current barrage of illegal entry will continue with or without it.

In that I differ from you. I think my two suggestions would decrease the illegal pressure. Migrant labor in particular.

There would be no harm or risk in doing at least. The worst is we still have a similar problem at the border yet have gained more tax paying workers. There needs to be enforcement etc. both at the border and on companies that employ workers illegally but if there are legal avenues the business will pursue them. And the fee they pay will allow better enforcement.

Tugg

DL717 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Two points from me:
One, the "picture crisis" is not and should not be. Borders do need enforcement. Enforcement is just that and force is used and needed at times. The picture captures just one moment of that and there are thousands of migrants and there are not thousands of pictures like this.

Two, the USA need to increase legal immigration but can't. I would say likely double what it currently is but would really need to look more into it to be sure. And in addition to that, the US needs to (re)create a legal process for migrant labor to come, do the work the migrants wish to do, and allow them to return home as needed and then return again to work. Legally.

Tugg

I don’t know that increasing quotas will do anything regarding the present problem, even though they should be making it easier for legal immigration. We have friends that have been patiently waiting to get citizenship for nearly a decade. The current barrage of illegal entry will continue with or without it.

Quotas and a revamp of the old Bracero program would make a huge difference via redistribution of resources. Also imagine how the flows on the SW border will change if seasonal migrant jobs are available and legal. And we can do a better version of Bracero this time around by ensuring agribusiness provide proper housing and living conditions to their workers.

I wish it were so but I don't think so. Haiti is one of the most densely populated nation per sq. mile in the world. The poorest in the Western Hemisphere. It also has a birth rate twice the US's. Without external aid, it will turn into a modern Easter Island as they are running out of water and have deforested most of the country. Coup's and devastating earthquakes and hurricanes.

They will continue to be on the move.

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

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?

What did I miss? The previous administration had four years to fix this and did nothing. Now, they and their base are complaining nothing is being done to fix the laws. What am I missing?

bpatus297 wrote:

[quote=" I will also add that being poor is not a valid reason for asylum in America.

Given that the USA is 3rd in OECD countries in terms of poverty after Costa Rica dn Hungary, being poor is hardly a reason to head for the USA

Not a fan of Trump, but he was fought tooth and nail on his border plans and wall.
I don't know any Americans who have trouble with legal immigrants.
Illegals don't go straight to the fields - that's pretty racist, no? They head to cities where service jobs are.
Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States would literally have millions show up if their borders were perceived to be open. (Maybe a million Afghani's alone) That is why they sent Harris to Central America and showed camera footage of planeloads being sent on planes back to Haiti.
Ask the European's and the Floridian's what happens when mass migration hits.

PhilBy wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

[quote=" I will also add that being poor is not a valid reason for asylum in America.

Given that the USA is 3rd in OECD countries in terms of poverty after Costa Rica dn Hungary, being poor is hardly a reason to head for the USA

They won't be poor if the social safety net is expanded by Congress. $3600 per kid is just the beginning.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Not a fan of Trump, but he was fought tooth and nail on his border plans and wall.
I don't know any Americans who have trouble with legal immigrants.
Illegals don't go straight to the fields - that's pretty racist, no? They head to cities where service jobs are.
Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States would literally have millions show up if their borders were perceived to be open. (Maybe a million Afghani's alone) That is why they sent Harris to Central America and showed camera footage of planeloads being sent on planes back to Haiti.
Ask the European's and the Floridian's what happens when mass migration hits.

The wall was a pile of bombastic, divisive bullshit. It would take too long, cost to much and not actually solve the problem. It ceded US territory and required forced taking of land from citizens that live at the border. Importantly, the entire border doesn't need and shouldn't be "walled". Walls and other barriers are needed and useful in certain regions, especially near larger population centers on the border but not so in vast parts of the border. Plus it requires constant upkeep at a very high cost.

I support good borders and funding to enforce such and to build proper walls and other border enforcement elements as needed where needed. But in no way do I support Trump and his moronic "build a wall!" bloviating. That was political bullshit.

Illegal immigration always has many different elements, varying by country. For the US the most "known" illegal immigration is from Mexico and you really need to get past teh political bluster that uses it as a cudgel to get votes.

You say "Illegals don't go straight to the fields - that's pretty racist, no? They head to cities where service jobs are."

But you blow away reality with such a broad statement. There are many workers from Mexico that come to the US illegally and go straight to the fields or the slaughter houses etc. And there is nothing racist about that. There are also a lot of illegals that go to work in service industries in large metro areas. But from what I have read those tend to be ones that are living here longer term. One thing a "hard border" does it makes it harder for people to go back and forth. And the reality is that a lot of job seekers would like to just go back home and then come back to work as needed. They can't, so they are forced to stay, and that sets roots and that brings more as family members join (because most families prefer to be together).

This is one of the reasons why I think changes like I suggest are needed.

There is also a big difference between the transitory illegal labor form Mexico and illegal immigrants from distant nations (such as Haiti). Those need to be viewed and managed differently and the reality they cannot just go home. They are desiring only to stay (sometimes the desire is said to only be for a temporary stay but most all such situation has turned into a desire to stay permanently) and we cannot just take in all the world that wants that. We need sound policies and proper border enforcement for that.

And everyone needs to understand that we will see "pictures" that look distressing but with proper review and oversight and disciplinary action if needed, those pictures are just one of the tools to ensure we are managing our borders and immigration properly and safely.


Tugg

Tugger - Trump was foolish I agree but where did anyone in this thread mention Mexican farm workers? The latest surge in asylum seekers are Haitians, Cubans, Central Americans and South Americans. In fact the Mexican Army is trying to help us https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 021-09-21/
Quote from story -
"Record numbers of migrants have passed through Mexico this year, driven by economic downturns stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic and drawn by the hope of more welcoming immigration policies under U.S. President Joe Biden.'

In addition, the issue is not just the 200,000 or so apprehended at the southern border last month. We are talking about illegal immigration that occurs thru most US gateway airports.

The Real Illegal Immigration Crisis Isn’t on the Southern Border
Focusing on asylum seekers who cross land borders ignores the real problem: people who overstay their visas. In the past 10 years, visa overstays in the United States have outnumbered border crossings by a ratio of about 2 to 1
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... as/587485/

bpatus297 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

Am I missing something? Are there not Border Patrol cowboys whipping the migrants at the border

I can see you don’t know anything about controlling a horse. They weren’t whipping the migrants.

Here is another angle, tells a different story.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/ ... /100484690

The photographer who took the picture has stated nobody was whipped.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border ... agents-pay

Marc

Cadet985 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

DL717 wrote:

I can see you don’t know anything about controlling a horse. They weren’t whipping the migrants.

Here is another angle, tells a different story.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/ ... /100484690

The photographer who took the picture has stated nobody was whipped.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/border ... agents-pay

Marc

Yes that’s obvious but it’s a red meat story. The real story is the big picture of how to reform going forward. CBP needs to fix their broken recruiting situation and laws need to change so they can make best use of limited resources. Migrant flows will not stop anytime soon.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Tugger - Trump was foolish I agree but where did anyone in this thread mention Mexican farm workers?

Well in my mind at least, I took your statement:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Illegals don't go straight to the fields - that's pretty racist, no? They head to cities where service jobs are.

To be relating to farm workers. (Working in the fields) And for me relating to Mexican farm workers I tried to make a distinction between "illegals from Mexico" as opposed to others as they can come in, work, then leave once done. (But they currently often don't as crossing illegal is expensive and not certain). Most other migrants can't do that as simply and don't intend to.

And I also agree that "the hope of looser policies under Biden" is poison. I get there will be differences but a free for all it can't be. And it seems that is what some think it will be.

And yes you are correct with:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The Real Illegal Immigration Crisis Isn’t on the Southern Border
Focusing on asylum seekers who cross land borders ignores the real problem: people who overstay their visas. In the past 10 years, visa overstays in the United States have outnumbered border crossings by a ratio of about 2 to 1
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... as/587485/

Tugg

I agree - we should have better programs to allow more Mexicans to work in the States without the hassle.

This is such a tough issue. How many people can America take in? There are more failed countries than ever - all hoping for a better life. Only the Chinese program of 1 child was able to stem their poverty. How does the world (not the US) tell Haiti, Afghanistan, fill in the blank, that?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I agree - we should have better programs to allow more Mexicans to work in the States without the hassle.

This is such a tough issue. How many people can America take in? There are more failed countries than ever - all hoping for a better life. Only the Chinese program of 1 child was able to stem their poverty. How does the world (not the US) tell Haiti, Afghanistan, fill in the blank, that?

An important question for sure.

It's basic psychology that people partner up more and crave intimacy more to cope with high levels of stress - and high levels of stress are endemic in both poverty-stricken and unstable countries. Without mitigation that's going to result in kids being born in places that don't need more, never mind the folly of trying to raise kids in such a place to begin with. The elephant in the room, it seems to me, is that faith groups are very active in impoverished areas but still constantly pushing family. If the UN could hand out rubbers and BCP like candy in these countries and faith groups would actively encourage their use, I'm positive that would make a huge dent in a variety of issues, including the numbers of people trying to relocate their family. But hard to do, as you suggest.

OK, I'll ask this:
Has legal immigration ever harmed the USA?

Tugg

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The Real Illegal Immigration Crisis Isn’t on the Southern Border
Focusing on asylum seekers who cross land borders ignores the real problem: people who overstay their visas. In the past 10 years, visa overstays in the United States have outnumbered border crossings by a ratio of about 2 to 1
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... as/587485/

Those people are from Asia, Russia, and Europe. MAGAs did not care about them.

As far as those who cross every year to do the jobs Americans refuse to do, so what? It happens and it was not stopped in any way under the previous administration. None of the MAGAs were whining and crying when it happened then. Why are they whining and crying now?

seb146 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The Real Illegal Immigration Crisis Isn’t on the Southern Border
Focusing on asylum seekers who cross land borders ignores the real problem: people who overstay their visas. In the past 10 years, visa overstays in the United States have outnumbered border crossings by a ratio of about 2 to 1
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... as/587485/

Those people are from Asia, Russia, and Europe. MAGAs did not care about them.

Not entirely correct - under MAGA star Stephen Miller's influence, a paper wall was built to dramatically slow legal immigration - from EVERYWHERE - in the last administration. Legal immigration was reduced by half, just by increasing administrative hurdles and increasing the criteria for denials.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartande ... 40bd106168

https://twitter.com/crampell/status/128 ... 32128?s=20

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-wee ... 1531019549

We need to get over what the MAGA fanatics did. Look at what Europe is facing. Australia puts illegals on a far away island.
The world is in trouble. Whole nations are failed states. Their populations continue to grow at unsustainable rates. And now they are showing up on the developed worlds border asking to come in.
So whats wrong with unfettered immigration? Ask the US west which is running out of water. Or Louisiana or Puerto Rico which are getting hammered by hurricanes.

How many is enough for any country? I don't have an answer and I struggle with that because my faith says we should help all people.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

We need to get over what the MAGA fanatics did. Look at what Europe is facing. Australia puts illegals on a far away island.
The world is in trouble. Whole nations are failed states. Their populations continue to grow at unsustainable rates. And now they are showing up on the developed worlds border asking to come in.
So whats wrong with unfettered immigration? Ask the US west which is running out of water. Or Louisiana or Puerto Rico which are getting hammered by hurricanes.

How many is enough for any country? I don't have an answer and I struggle with that because my faith says we should help all people.

As I said before, if people of faith want to help, they can pressure their faith leaders to start advocating for widespread contraception use and distribution in their developing country ministries, like STAT. People are starting families in places where it's incredibly unwise to do so - because they are told it will still have positive effects for them. Nobody's thinking about the conditions the kids will grow up in.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

We need to get over what the MAGA fanatics did. Look at what Europe is facing. Australia puts illegals on a far away island.
The world is in trouble. Whole nations are failed states. Their populations continue to grow at unsustainable rates. And now they are showing up on the developed worlds border asking to come in.
So whats wrong with unfettered immigration? Ask the US west which is running out of water. Or Louisiana or Puerto Rico which are getting hammered by hurricanes.

How many is enough for any country? I don't have an answer and I struggle with that because my faith says we should help all people.

Europe and Australia have their own laws. And, no, we will not "get over" what MAGA did. They don't want to get over what is happening now.

They had four years to change immigration laws. They did nothing. Now, they are complaining. It is a valid point. They are complaining about something they could have done something about but, instead, went golfing.

seb146 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

We need to get over what the MAGA fanatics did. Look at what Europe is facing. Australia puts illegals on a far away island.
The world is in trouble. Whole nations are failed states. Their populations continue to grow at unsustainable rates. And now they are showing up on the developed worlds border asking to come in.
So whats wrong with unfettered immigration? Ask the US west which is running out of water. Or Louisiana or Puerto Rico which are getting hammered by hurricanes.

How many is enough for any country? I don't have an answer and I struggle with that because my faith says we should help all people.

Europe and Australia have their own laws. And, no, we will not "get over" what MAGA did. They don't want to get over what is happening now.

They had four years to change immigration laws. They did nothing. Now, they are complaining. It is a valid point. They are complaining about something they could have done something about but, instead, went golfing.

I voted for Biden. Ok -so what the plan today? One party controls Congress and the White House. Shipping some of the Haitians back has pissed off the progressive wing who claim it is racist. What happens going forward?

If you look at history, immigrants will always "win". No matter how many resources you throw at it.
The ONLY way for immigration to stop if to make life better in those countries from which the immigrants emanate compared to the countries immigrants emigrate to.
Fortunately, there are a few shining examples in Central (and South) America that can teach other countries how to prosper. Costa Rica and Panama come to mind. Simply put, they kicked out the military and/or the US and focused on education and economic growth, coupled with honest governance.

Dieuwer wrote:

Fortunately, there are a few shining examples in Central (and South) America that can teach other countries how to prosper. Costa Rica and Panama come to mind. Simply put, they kicked out the military and/or the US and focused on education and economic growth, coupled with honest governance.

Developed nations involvement in the developing world have more been out of fear of where they may go versus seeing where they can assist.
At least in the ME today from where migrants are now flooding Europe, there does not seem to be any push to reform those countries, just deal with the migrants. At some point, just as they can influence banking and trade rules to suit themselves, they will have to start pressuring nations to readmit their citizens.
In the case of Haiti, the UN has had major programs there for many years, how different would things be if they were not there, personally, I believe not much different.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

seb146 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

We need to get over what the MAGA fanatics did. Look at what Europe is facing. Australia puts illegals on a far away island.
The world is in trouble. Whole nations are failed states. Their populations continue to grow at unsustainable rates. And now they are showing up on the developed worlds border asking to come in.
So whats wrong with unfettered immigration? Ask the US west which is running out of water. Or Louisiana or Puerto Rico which are getting hammered by hurricanes.

How many is enough for any country? I don't have an answer and I struggle with that because my faith says we should help all people.

Europe and Australia have their own laws. And, no, we will not "get over" what MAGA did. They don't want to get over what is happening now.

They had four years to change immigration laws. They did nothing. Now, they are complaining. It is a valid point. They are complaining about something they could have done something about but, instead, went golfing.

I voted for Biden. Ok -so what the plan today? One party controls Congress and the White House. Shipping some of the Haitians back has pissed off the progressive wing who claim it is racist. What happens going forward?

Much of the same. The public has never really pressured Congress to have the tough conversations and negotiations - minus lobbyists - that are required to get meaningful reform done. They've had since 1986. The public conversation is usually the red meat hyperemotional appeals to emotion on either side - nobody wants to engage on the nuances of the issue. There are no billboards or TV ads that say 'HEY - slow down. This is a complex issue - we need clarity on quotas, we need clarity on guest workers, we need clarity on enforcement on businesses and noncitizen violators going forward.'

Dieuwer wrote:

If you look at history, immigrants will always "win". No matter how many resources you throw at it.
The ONLY way for immigration to stop if to make life better in those countries from which the immigrants emanate compared to the countries immigrants emigrate to.
Fortunately, there are a few shining examples in Central (and South) America that can teach other countries how to prosper. Costa Rica and Panama come to mind. Simply put, they kicked out the military and/or the US and focused on education and economic growth, coupled with honest governance.

Actually thats not true. Listed below are 4 wealthy countries that make asylum seekers prove that they should stay I.e. no economic immigration. I just copied clips from Google searches.

Japan receives a low number of immigrants compared to other G7 countries.[9] This is consistent with Gallup data, which shows that Japan is an exceptionally unpopular migrant destination to potential migrants, with the number of potential migrants wishing to migrate to Japan 12 times less than those who wished to migrate to the US and 3 times less than those who wished to migrate to Canada,[10] which roughly corresponds to the actual relative differences in migrant inflows between the three countries.[

Switzerland: Why asylum seekers are put off -
In 2012, Switzerland introduced fast-track asylum procedures for applicants from certain countries. The changes meant that asylum applications from these nationals were to be processed within 48 hours of their initial interview. Rejected applicants were immediately returned.

New Zealand has one of the lowest numbers of refugees per capita in the world — there is room for many more

South Korea has a lukewarm attitude towards refugees. Despite being the first Asian nation to legislate a refugee act, it has one of the lowest acceptance rates among developed countries. It granted refugee status to around 1.5% of all applicants between 1994 and 2020, according to the justice ministry

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

If you look at history, immigrants will always "win". No matter how many resources you throw at it.
The ONLY way for immigration to stop if to make life better in those countries from which the immigrants emanate compared to the countries immigrants emigrate to.
Fortunately, there are a few shining examples in Central (and South) America that can teach other countries how to prosper. Costa Rica and Panama come to mind. Simply put, they kicked out the military and/or the US and focused on education and economic growth, coupled with honest governance.

Actually thats not true. Listed below are 4 wealthy countries that make asylum seekers prove that they should stay I.e. no economic immigration. I just copied clips from Google searches.

Japan receives a low number of immigrants compared to other G7 countries.[9] This is consistent with Gallup data, which shows that Japan is an exceptionally unpopular migrant destination to potential migrants, with the number of potential migrants wishing to migrate to Japan 12 times less than those who wished to migrate to the US and 3 times less than those who wished to migrate to Canada,[10] which roughly corresponds to the actual relative differences in migrant inflows between the three countries.[

Switzerland: Why asylum seekers are put off -
In 2012, Switzerland introduced fast-track asylum procedures for applicants from certain countries. The changes meant that asylum applications from these nationals were to be processed within 48 hours of their initial interview. Rejected applicants were immediately returned.

New Zealand has one of the lowest numbers of refugees per capita in the world — there is room for many more

South Korea has a lukewarm attitude towards refugees. Despite being the first Asian nation to legislate a refugee act, it has one of the lowest acceptance rates among developed countries. It granted refugee status to around 1.5% of all applicants between 1994 and 2020, according to the justice ministry

Okay well....Switzerland and New Zealand each have just two major international airports - easy for them to implement policy procedurally. Japan and South Korea are unattractive to migrants because they are difficult places to live and work if one cannot understand Japanese or Korean.

You can walk to Switzerland once you get to the EU. Typical of the Swiss, you are held for 48 hours (probably never 49 or 47 hours) and the decision is made. On average, Switzerland has granted asylum to around 14 % of applicants over the past decade.

Maybe if our system was that good......

But people will continue the march or overstaying the visa. Canada, US, Western Europe (except Switzerland) and Australia should just plan for the consequences.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

You can walk to Switzerland once you get to the EU. Typical of the Swiss, you are held for 48 hours (probably never 49 or 47 hours) and the decision is made. On average, Switzerland has granted asylum to around 14 % of applicants over the past decade.

Maybe if our system was that good......

But people will continue the march or overstaying the visa. Canada, US, Western Europe (except Switzerland) and Australia should just plan for the consequences.

Easy for Switzerland to be efficient - their population is equivalent to metro Chicago.

As for the continuing march: will you pressure your representatives to engage this issue without the emotional rhetoric? Will you pressure your faith leaders to back efforts to reduce massive population growth in poor countries and conflict zones? It needs to happen as a tidal wave to have any effect.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

You can walk to Switzerland once you get to the EU. Typical of the Swiss, you are held for 48 hours (probably never 49 or 47 hours) and the decision is made. On average, Switzerland has granted asylum to around 14 % of applicants over the past decade.

Maybe if our system was that good......

But people will continue the march or overstaying the visa. Canada, US, Western Europe (except Switzerland) and Australia should just plan for the consequences.

And send people where? Canada? Who will.... Send them back to the States? Switzerland can find places for them to go. Neighboring countries like Germany and France and Poland. Our choices are Mexico and Canada, if price is an issue. That's another thing: where to put these people while processing them? American law being what it is, we pay for housing them until they are processed. As has been said: If you don't like it, call your members of Congress and lobby them to get the laws changed. I doubt it will happen unless you "contribute" to their campaign fund in a "noticeable" way but, if you feel it makes a difference. Many of us contact our members of Congress about various things, even knowing it will do no good.

The US routinely sends people back to their home countries. Recently Haitians but people who are caught over staying their visas too.

It doesn't matter if I like our present system - I'm retired and will be long gone or in a home when America's population is 400 million. I belong to a liberal Protestant faith that is actually pro women's choice. I had 2 kids who as adults have no children. I'm an environmentalist, don't travel by air, and have a very efficient energy footprint. And I remember how nice the areas outside the cities were when only 200 million people lived here and there wasn't sprawl everywhere.

Don't think we'll hit 400 million soon? The Census Bureau has consistently underestimated our population growth.
According to the Census Bureau's 1989 medium scenario, the U.S. population would peak in 2040 at 302 million and then begin to fall to 292 million, by 2080

Maybe there will be some magical technology solution. You guys better hope so.

I see the Govt "undercounted" the refugees at Del Rio. Sent 2000 back, 8000 went back into to Mexico waiting for the next opportunity. And around 12000 got in.
Sends a pretty clear msg that the odds are pretty good you'll get in. Understand a dozen or so babies born in the camp - now they really hit the citizenship lotto.
I wonder if Mom had Blue Cross or UnitedHealth?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

If you look at history, immigrants will always "win". No matter how many resources you throw at it.
The ONLY way for immigration to stop if to make life better in those countries from which the immigrants emanate compared to the countries immigrants emigrate to.
Fortunately, there are a few shining examples in Central (and South) America that can teach other countries how to prosper. Costa Rica and Panama come to mind. Simply put, they kicked out the military and/or the US and focused on education and economic growth, coupled with honest governance.

Actually thats not true.

Yes it is.
Just look at the history of the European and Middle Eastern sub-continent over the last two millennia. All its empires collapsed due to foreign incursions. Either by peaceful or military means.
In fact, that is how the US got started: Europeans emigrated to the North American continent sometime in the 17th century, displaced the Native Population (with or without force) and basically took over the place 200 years later. In essence, no different than how the Goths took over the Western Roman Empire, or how the Spanish showed up in Tenochtitlan and destroyed the Aztec civilization.

Dieuwer wrote:

If you look at history, immigrants will always "win". No matter how many resources you throw at it.

African migration to Europe is down significantly since Europe confiscated NGO ships and erected fences.

The ONLY way for immigration to stop if to make life better in those countries from which the immigrants emanate compared to the countries immigrants emigrate to.

Absolute nonsense that you made up yourself and has no factual basis. Almost all scientific research points in the complete opposite direction. Read this article i.e. for a good understanding:

Who could deny that rising opportunity at home would give them fewer reasons to leave?
Well, the facts do. The facts deny that. Within low-income countries, richer people are more likely to emigrate. And as low-income countries economically grow, people are more likely to emigrate.

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/emigration-r ... ot-fear-it

Jetty wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

If you look at history, immigrants will always "win". No matter how many resources you throw at it.

African migration to Europe is down significantly since Europe confiscated NGO ships and erected fences.

The ONLY way for immigration to stop if to make life better in those countries from which the immigrants emanate compared to the countries immigrants emigrate to.

Absolute nonsense that you made up yourself and has no factual basis. Almost all scientific research points in the complete opposite direction. Read this article i.e. for a good understanding:

Who could deny that rising opportunity at home would give them fewer reasons to leave?
Well, the facts do. The facts deny that. Within low-income countries, richer people are more likely to emigrate. And as low-income countries economically grow, people are more likely to emigrate.

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/emigration-r ... ot-fear-it

Quoting a self-serving thinktank that receives subsidies to meddle in foreign countries. They have zero credibility with their fake research reports.
FACT remains that people in impoverished nations are seeking a better life in richer Western nations. Not the other way around.

https://sandiegoimmigrationlawcenter.co ... ate-to-us/